Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2
Yuki Takagi,1,2 Ryo Asano,1,3 Kanna Yamashita,2 Yukihiro Sakai,2 Sho Yokoyama,1 Kei Ichikawa,2 Kazuo Ichikawa2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 2Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 3Asano Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, Japa...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Dove Medical Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Clinical Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-imo-vifa24plus1-2-and-humphrey-field-analyzer-24-2-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832577663320981504 |
|---|---|
| author | Takagi Y Asano R Yamashita K Sakai Y Yokoyama S Ichikawa K Ichikawa K |
| author_facet | Takagi Y Asano R Yamashita K Sakai Y Yokoyama S Ichikawa K Ichikawa K |
| author_sort | Takagi Y |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Yuki Takagi,1,2 Ryo Asano,1,3 Kanna Yamashita,2 Yukihiro Sakai,2 Sho Yokoyama,1 Kei Ichikawa,2 Kazuo Ichikawa2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 2Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 3Asano Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, JapanCorrespondence: Yuki Takagi, Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, 1-1-10 Sanjo Minami-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan, Tel +81-52-691-7151, Fax +81-52-692-5220, Email ytakagi@sanjogroup.jpPurpose: This study aimed to compare the results of the IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) and HFA 24– 2 visual field tests.Patients and Methods: We included 52 patients (104 eyes) with glaucoma who visited Chukyo Eye Clinic between June 2023 and March 2024. On the same day, the HFA 24– 2 test using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and the IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) test using the Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated strategy were performed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare fixation, false positives, false negatives, and total test time for both eyes between the HFA and IMO vifa tests. Only eyes with reliable test results were selected, and the visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Results: The test times for the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) were 716.83± 118.80 and 628.75± 142.70 s, respectively, with the IMO vifa being significantly shorter (P< 0.001). For fixation, the results were 15.85± 16.57% and 11.09± 15.20%, with significantly better fixation in the IMO vifa (P< 0.0001). False positives and negatives were 4.52± 5.19 / 4.14± 6.85% and 4.97± 7.99 / 5.47± 7.86%, respectively, with no significant differences, though the IMO vifa showed a slightly higher trend (P=0.980, 0.056). In eyes with reliable results, the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) outcomes were as follows: MD (− 6.45± 7.23, − 6.85± 7.35, P=0.724), PSD (7.13± 4.75, 7.49± 4.87, P=0.061), VFI (80.86± 21.61, 80.86± 21.74, P=0.644). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) were MD: 0.938, PSD: 0.949, VFI: 0.932 (all P< 0.001).Conclusion: The IMO vifa demonstrates a very high correlation with HFA and allows for a shorter examination time. Fixation errors are significantly improved compared to HFA, while there is no significant difference in false positives or false negatives.Keywords: glaucoma, visual field test, IMO vifa 24plus(1-2), HFA 24-2 |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-46c5709c0cff40949e63b50fe9a37f83 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1177-5483 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Dove Medical Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-46c5709c0cff40949e63b50fe9a37f832025-01-30T18:07:17ZengDove Medical PressClinical Ophthalmology1177-54832025-01-01Volume 1930130799716Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2Takagi YAsano RYamashita KSakai YYokoyama SIchikawa KIchikawa KYuki Takagi,1,2 Ryo Asano,1,3 Kanna Yamashita,2 Yukihiro Sakai,2 Sho Yokoyama,1 Kei Ichikawa,2 Kazuo Ichikawa2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 2Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; 3Asano Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Aichi, JapanCorrespondence: Yuki Takagi, Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, 1-1-10 Sanjo Minami-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan, Tel +81-52-691-7151, Fax +81-52-692-5220, Email ytakagi@sanjogroup.jpPurpose: This study aimed to compare the results of the IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) and HFA 24– 2 visual field tests.Patients and Methods: We included 52 patients (104 eyes) with glaucoma who visited Chukyo Eye Clinic between June 2023 and March 2024. On the same day, the HFA 24– 2 test using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and the IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) test using the Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated strategy were performed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare fixation, false positives, false negatives, and total test time for both eyes between the HFA and IMO vifa tests. Only eyes with reliable test results were selected, and the visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Results: The test times for the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) were 716.83± 118.80 and 628.75± 142.70 s, respectively, with the IMO vifa being significantly shorter (P< 0.001). For fixation, the results were 15.85± 16.57% and 11.09± 15.20%, with significantly better fixation in the IMO vifa (P< 0.0001). False positives and negatives were 4.52± 5.19 / 4.14± 6.85% and 4.97± 7.99 / 5.47± 7.86%, respectively, with no significant differences, though the IMO vifa showed a slightly higher trend (P=0.980, 0.056). In eyes with reliable results, the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) outcomes were as follows: MD (− 6.45± 7.23, − 6.85± 7.35, P=0.724), PSD (7.13± 4.75, 7.49± 4.87, P=0.061), VFI (80.86± 21.61, 80.86± 21.74, P=0.644). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the HFA 24– 2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1– 2) were MD: 0.938, PSD: 0.949, VFI: 0.932 (all P< 0.001).Conclusion: The IMO vifa demonstrates a very high correlation with HFA and allows for a shorter examination time. Fixation errors are significantly improved compared to HFA, while there is no significant difference in false positives or false negatives.Keywords: glaucoma, visual field test, IMO vifa 24plus(1-2), HFA 24-2https://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-imo-vifa24plus1-2-and-humphrey-field-analyzer-24-2-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTHglaucomavisual field testimo vifa 24plus(1-2)hfa 24-2 |
| spellingShingle | Takagi Y Asano R Yamashita K Sakai Y Yokoyama S Ichikawa K Ichikawa K Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 Clinical Ophthalmology glaucoma visual field test imo vifa 24plus(1-2) hfa 24-2 |
| title | Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 |
| title_full | Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 |
| title_short | Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 |
| title_sort | comparison of imo vifa24plus 1 2 and humphrey field analyzer 24 2 |
| topic | glaucoma visual field test imo vifa 24plus(1-2) hfa 24-2 |
| url | https://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-imo-vifa24plus1-2-and-humphrey-field-analyzer-24-2-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT takagiy comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT asanor comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT yamashitak comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT sakaiy comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT yokoyamas comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT ichikawak comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 AT ichikawak comparisonofimovifa24plus12andhumphreyfieldanalyzer242 |