The Agreement Between an iPad Visual Field App and Humphrey Frequency Doubling Technology in Visual Field Screening at Health Fairs.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2021
01 09 2021
Historique:
received:
18
12
2020
accepted:
08
06
2021
pubmed:
27
6
2021
medline:
27
10
2021
entrez:
26
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This is the first exploratory study demonstrating the promising potential of app-based visual fields testing in a low-resource health fair setting for community screening of high-risk Latino adults. To compare the "Visual Fields Easy" (VFE) iPad application against the Humphrey Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) N-30-5 in detecting abnormal visual fields in a low-resource health fair setting. Latinos aged 40 to 80 years were recruited at a health fair in Los Angeles, California, in November 2017. Both eyes were tested using VFE and FDT. To account for possible nested correlations between participants and eyes, linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the difference in test time and the association in percent of missed points. A Bland-Altman plot and receiver operator characteristic curve were constructed for further comparisons. Forty-five participants with a mean age of 58.5 years (SD=9.5 y) were recruited and both eyes were tested (90 eyes). VFE testing took on average 141 seconds longer per eye than FDT (95% confidence interval: 137-145 s), and FDT resulted in having 7.50% more missed points than VFE (95% confidence interval: 2.56%-12.43%, P=0.002). The Bland-Altman plot depicted reduced agreement with increasing average of percent of points missed. The sensitivity and specificity of VFE were 67% and 77%, respectively, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.71. In this exploratory study, VFE exhibited moderate discrimination for identifying Latino adults with abnormal visual fields compared with FDT. Agreement between FDT and VFE was greater for patients with mild-to-moderate visual field loss. Further software enhancements of app-based fields testing, in concert with other portable testing, represents promising screening methods for high-risk groups in resource-limited environments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34172631
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001902
pii: 00061198-202109000-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
846-850Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–2090.
National Eye Institute. Projections for Glaucoma (2010-2030-2050). Available at: https://nei.nih.gov/eyedata/glaucoma/tables#5 . Accessed February 4, 2018.
Shaikh Y, Yu F, Coleman AL. Burden of undetected and untreated glaucoma in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158:1121–1129.e1.
Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, et al. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA. 1991;266:369–374.
Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1439–1448.
Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O’Colmain BJ, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:532–538.
Maier PC, Funk J, Schwarzer G, et al. Treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;331:134.
Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, et al. Glaucoma. Lancet. 2017;390:2183–2193.
Moyer VA. Force USPST. Screening for glaucoma: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:484–489.
Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Your Medicare coverage: glaucoma tests. Available at: https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/glaucoma-tests . Accessed November 4, 2020.
Becker T, Ponce NA. Californians Maintain Health Insurance Coverage Despite National Trends. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research; 2019.
Becker TL, Babey SH, Charles SA. Still Left Behind: Health Insurance Coverage and Access to Care Among Latinos in California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research; 2019.
Murray K, Liang A, Barnack-Tavlaris J, et al. The reach and rationale for community health fairs. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29:19–24.
Cioffi GA, Mansberger S, Spry P, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:195–199; discussion 199-202.
Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819–829.
Lieberman MF, Congdon NG, He M. The value of tests in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:889–899.e1.
Johnson CA, Thapa S, George Kong YX, et al. Performance of an iPad application to detect moderate and advanced visual field loss in Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;182:147–154.
Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Visual field testing with the new Humphrey Matrix: a comparison between the FDT N-30 and Matrix N-30-F tests. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:351–356.
Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213–225.
Santos AS, Morabe ES. “VisualFields Easy”: an iPad application as a simple tool for detecting visual field defects. Philipp J Ophthalmol. 2016;41:22–26.
Spofforth J, Codina C, Bjerre A. Is the “Visual Fields Easy” application a useful tool to identify visual field defects in patients who have suffered a stroke. OR. 2017;7:1–10.
Wintergerst MWM, Brinkmann CK, Holz FG, et al. Undilated versus dilated monoscopic smartphone-based fundus photography for optic nerve head evaluation. Sci Rep. 2018;8:10228.
Schulz AM, Graham EC, You Y, et al. Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:346–355.
Vingrys AJ, Healey JK, Liew S, et al. Validation of a tablet as a tangent perimeter. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:3.
Kong YX, He M, Crowston JG, et al. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:2.