Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma
PurposeVisual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832086485586673664 |
|---|---|
| author | Joyce Tiang Algis J. Vingrys Algis J. Vingrys Sarah Lin Selwyn M. Prea Adam Ahmed Moktar Allan Bank Ashish Agar Ashish Agar Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong |
| author_facet | Joyce Tiang Algis J. Vingrys Algis J. Vingrys Sarah Lin Selwyn M. Prea Adam Ahmed Moktar Allan Bank Ashish Agar Ashish Agar Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong |
| author_sort | Joyce Tiang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | PurposeVisual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.MethodsThis study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.ResultsPatient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.ConclusionMRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-172574849c3f4cb6b868452b8ad78f31 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2674-0826 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-172574849c3f4cb6b868452b8ad78f312025-02-06T12:00:03ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Ophthalmology2674-08262025-02-01510.3389/fopht.2025.14859501485950Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucomaJoyce Tiang0Algis J. Vingrys1Algis J. Vingrys2Sarah Lin3Selwyn M. Prea4Adam Ahmed Moktar5Allan Bank6Ashish Agar7Ashish Agar8Yu Xiang George Kong9Yu Xiang George Kong10Yu Xiang George Kong11Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Dubbo Eye Centre, Dubbo, NSW, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mt Waverley Eye Surgeons, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaPurposeVisual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.MethodsThis study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.ResultsPatient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.ConclusionMRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950/fullvisual fieldrural medicine careportable perimeterglaucomaglaucoma & fieldsMelbourne Rapid Field (MRF) |
| spellingShingle | Joyce Tiang Algis J. Vingrys Algis J. Vingrys Sarah Lin Selwyn M. Prea Adam Ahmed Moktar Allan Bank Ashish Agar Ashish Agar Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong Yu Xiang George Kong Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma Frontiers in Ophthalmology visual field rural medicine care portable perimeter glaucoma glaucoma & fields Melbourne Rapid Field (MRF) |
| title | Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma |
| title_full | Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma |
| title_fullStr | Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma |
| title_short | Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma |
| title_sort | multi centre comparison between device independent web browser perimetry melbourne rapid fields web and sita faster for glaucoma |
| topic | visual field rural medicine care portable perimeter glaucoma glaucoma & fields Melbourne Rapid Field (MRF) |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joycetiang multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT algisjvingrys multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT algisjvingrys multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT sarahlin multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT selwynmprea multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT adamahmedmoktar multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT allanbank multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT ashishagar multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT ashishagar multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT yuxianggeorgekong multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT yuxianggeorgekong multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma AT yuxianggeorgekong multicentrecomparisonbetweendeviceindependentwebbrowserperimetrymelbournerapidfieldswebandsitafasterforglaucoma |