Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser.
Glaucoma
Glaufield Lite perimeter
Humphrey Field Analyser
Static automated perimetry
Visual field test
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
09
02
2022
accepted:
31
07
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
10
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA). A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program. The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices. Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35947251
doi: 10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5
pii: 10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
557-565Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Lewis RA, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Labermeier PK (1986) Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers. Ophthalmology 93:878–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(86)33647-9
doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(86)33647-9
pubmed: 3763131
Anderson DR, Feuer WJ, Alward WL, Skuta GL (1989) Threshold equivalence between perimeters. Am J Ophthalmol 107:493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(89)90493-5
doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(89)90493-5
pubmed: 2712132
Vingrys AJ, Helfrich KA (1990) The Opticom M-600™: a new LED automated perimeter. Clin Exp Optom 73:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.1990.tb03092.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.1990.tb03092.x
Dengler-Harles M, Wild JM, Cole MD, O’Neill EC (1993) The influence of stimulus parameters on the visual field indices by automated projection perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 231:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919030
doi: 10.1007/BF00919030
pubmed: 8339949
Zhang L, Drance SM, Douglas GR (1997) The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation. J Glaucoma 6:259–262
doi: 10.1097/00061198-199708000-00011
pubmed: 9264306
Harwood LW, Remington LA (1999) A comparison of the synemed glaucoma and the humphrey 30–2 threshold perimetry tests. J Am Optom Assoc 70:240–244
pubmed: 10457700
Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, Graham S (2003) A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters. Br J Ophthalmol 87:690–694. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.6.690
doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.6.690
pubmed: 12770962
pmcid: 1771686
Monsalve B, Ferreras A, Calvo P, Urcola JA, Figus M, Monsalve J, Frezzotti P (2017) Diagnostic ability of Humphrey perimetry, Octopus perimetry, and optical coherence tomography for glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Eye (London) 31:443–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2016.251
doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.251
Rathbone A, Shaw S, Kumbhare D (2015) ICC.Sample.Size: calculation of sample size and power for ICC. R package version 1.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ICC.Sample.Size . Accessed 6 December 2021
R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ . Accessed 6 December 2021
Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y (1999) Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004170050190.1999;237:29-34
doi: 10.1007/s004170050190.1999;237:29-34
pubmed: 9951638
Heijl A, Krakau CE (1977) A note of fixation during perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol 55:854–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1977.tb08284.x)
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1977.tb08284.x)
De Moraes CG, Hood DC, Thenappan A, Girkin CA, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Liebmann JM (2017) 24-2 visual fields miss central defects shown on 10-2 tests in glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives, and early Glaucoma. Ophthalmology 124:1449–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021
pubmed: 28551166
Kumar H, Thulasidas M (2020) Comparison of perimetric outcomes from melbourne rapid fields tablet perimeter software and humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. J Ophthalmol 2020:8384509. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8384509
doi: 10.1155/2020/8384509
pubmed: 32908686
pmcid: 7463344
Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, Kotawala S, Haran S, Rajasekar S, Friedman DS, Venkatesh R (2020) Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma 29:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001415
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001415
pubmed: 31790067
Quigley HA (2011) Glaucoma. Lancet 377:1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61423-7
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61423-7
pubmed: 21453963