A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients
A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/tvst.5.6.2
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Vingrys, Algis J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kong, Yu Xiang George;He, Mingguang;Vingrys, Algis J.
目的：探讨苹果iPad平板电脑上运行的周边测量软件Melbourne Rapid Fields （MRF）与Humphrey Field Analyzer （HFA）周边测量结果的相关性。方法：采用贝叶斯逻辑设计具有可变固定和快速阈值化特点的磁共振成像软件。在这里，我们报告了一项来自90名参与者的90只眼睛的横断面研究：12只视神经正常，78只患有不同程度的视野丧失的青光眼（41名轻度和37名中重度）。排除标准为视力低于20/40或近期进行过眼内手术的患者。将MRF的视野结果与HFA 24-2 SITA标准的结果进行比较。参与者在磁共振成像上进行了两次测试，以建立测试-再测试的重复性。结果：MRF的测试时间比HFA短（5.7 +/- 0.1 vs. 6.3 +/- 0.1分钟，P < 0.001）。MRF的结果与HFA高度一致（平均缺陷[MD]的类内系数[ICC] = 0.93，模式偏差[PD]的类内系数[ICC] = 0.86），尽管与HFA相比，MRF倾向于给出更少的负MD （1.4 dB偏差）。MRF也显示了与HFA相当的重测信度水平（MD的ICC = 0.93， PD的ICC = 0.89, 95%的一致性限为-4.5至4.3 dB）。结论：磁共振成像的视野检查结果与HFA结果有很强的相关性。MRF也具有与HFA相当的重测信度。翻译相关性：当标准视距仪不可用或不合适时，便携式片式视距仪可以准确评估视野。
Purpose: To determine the correlation between the perimetric outcomes from perimetry software Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) run on an Apple iPad tablet and those from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).Methods: The MRF software was designed with features including variable fixation and fast thresholding using Bayes logic. Here, we report a cross-sectional study on 90 eyes from 90 participants: 12 had normal optic nerves and 78 had glaucoma with various degrees of visual field loss (41 mild and 37 moderate-severe). Exclusion criteria were patients with worse than 20/40 vision or recent intraocular surgery. The visual field outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Participants were tested twice on the MRF to establish test-retest repeatability.Results: The test durations were shorter on MRF than HFA (5.7 +/- 0.1 vs. 6.3 +/- 0.1 minutes, P < 0.001). MRF showed a high level of concordance in its outcomes with HFA (intraclass coefficient [ICC] = 0.93 for mean defect [MD] and 0.86 for pattern deviation [PD]) although the MRF tended to give a less negative MD (1.4 dB bias) compared with the HFA. MRF also showed levels of test-retest reliability comparable to HFA (ICC = 0.93 for MD and 0.89 for PD, 95% limits of agreement -4.5 to 4.3 dB).Conclusion: The perimetry results from the MRF have a strong correlation to the HFA outcomes. MRF also has test-retest reliability comparable to HFA.Translational Relevance: Portable tablet perimetry may allow accurate assessment of visual field when standard perimetry machines are unavailable or unsuitable.