Dataset Information

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.

Methods

One eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24-2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated 'equivalent' sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland-Altman (mean difference [M_diff ] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed.

Results

The VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false-positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test-retest variability was higher for VF (M_diff 0.3 dB, LoA -7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (M_diff -0.3 dB, LoA -6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test-retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort.

Conclusions

Virtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test-retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.

SUBMITTER: Phu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10952716 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.

Phu Jack J Wang Henrietta H Kalloniatis Michael M

Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) 20231006 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.<h4>Methods</h4>One eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24-2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and cal ...[more]

PMID: 37803502

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the Advanced Vision Analyzer (AVA; Elisar Vision Technology) and to compare pointwise threshold sensitivity and functional correlation of Elisar Standard Algorithm (ESA) with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc).DesignProspective, cross-sectional, observational case series.ParticipantsOne hundred sixty eyes (85 control participants, 75 glaucoma patients) for functional assessment, 15 eyes for test-retest variability (TRV), 107 eyes for blind spot trial (45 normal eyes, 62 glaucoma eyes) were recruited consecutively. A separate group of participants was chosen for each assessment.MethodsAll participants underwent ESA and SITA Standard 24-2 testing, and 1 eye of each participant was selected randomly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, mean bias (MB), and proportional bias analyses were quantified and assessed. Threshold measurements, TRV, and blind spot location accuracy were compared with those of the HFA.Main outcome measuresPointwise threshold sensitivity, sectoral mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), TRV, blind spot location, average test time were computed, and data were correlated.ResultsThe mean time required to perform a field test with the AVA was 7.08 ± 1.55 minutes and with HFA was 6.26 ± 0.54 minutes (P = 0.228). The MS difference between AVA and HFA was -2.2 ± 2.3 dB in healthy participants (P < 0.001) and -2.6 ± 3.5 dB in participants with glaucoma (P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients for pointwise threshold values were moderately to strongly correlated for both the devices (r = 0.68-0.89). For MS, the overall ICC value was 0.893 (P < 0.001) with MB of 2.48 dB and a limits of agreement (LOA) of 10.90 (range, 7.93 to -2.97). For TRV, response variability decreased with an increase in sensitivity and increased with eccentricity. Blind spot location was accurate, and global indices of testing methods correlated well.ConclusionsThe AVA effectively captures threshold values for each point in the visual field. Adequate functional correlation suggests substantial equivalence between the AVA (ESA) and HFA (SITA Standard), implying that AVA may allow accurate assessment of visual field.

Project description:PurposeThe tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.DesignObservational cross-sectional study.SubjectsAdult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.MethodsParticipants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.Main outcome measuresMean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.ResultsOverall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26-79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was -2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.ConclusionsAlthough average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.Financial disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Project description:PurposeTo compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.MethodsFifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.ResultsMP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.ConclusionsBoth instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.

Project description:BackgroundTo conduct a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of visual field fast (VFF), a free iPad-based noise-field perimeter, in detecting glaucomatous scotomas versus the clinical-standard Humphrey visual field (HVF) test. VFF confronts subjects with a screen of flickering stimulus, allowing the immediate perception of scotomas.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of 66 glaucoma patients (66 eyes) and 30 healthy controls (30 eyes). All patients had no other visual field disorders. VFF was compared against HVF in terms of whole field and quadrants for the following: (1) correspondence in scotoma detection. (2) Agreement and correlation of the scotoma size (percentage of abnormal visual field area). (3) Test duration. Other domains tested included: (1) correlation of VFF scotoma area with the severity of visual field loss on HVF (mean deviation, MD; visual field index, VFI). (2) Repeatability of VFF. (3) Patient descriptors of scotomas.ResultsUsing HVF pattern deviation plot as a reference, VFF detected 52/57 (91.2%) of glaucoma subjects with 1 false-positive (control) (kappa = 0.86). 146/184 (79.3%) of abnormal quadrants (visual field defect present) were localized and 23/157 (14.6%) healthy quadrants were falsely identified as abnormal (kappa = 0.61). VFF underestimated scotoma area as compared to HVF (21.0% versus 44.0%, p < 0.01) but correlated positively (r = 0.268, p = 0.044) with HVF area and negatively with VFI (r = -0.340, p = 0.01) and MD (r = -0.398, p < 0.01). Using HVF total deviation plot as reference, VFF's glaucoma detection rate remained unchanged (kappa = 0.86) with similar quadrant detection (kappa = 0.68). However, a greater underestimation of scotoma area was observed (21.0% versus 85.4%, p < 0.01). VFF's quantitative repeatability was excellent for whole field (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC: 0.96; p < 0.0001) and quadrants (ICC: 0.82-0.96; all p < 0.001). Qualitatively, 35/37 (94.6%) of subjects reported reduced luminance and flicker in scotomas, with similar morphologies on retests. VFF is faster than HVF SITA-Standard in glaucoma (3.60 ± 1.85 min versus 6.92 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.01) and control (1.12 ± 0.486 min versus 5.16 ± 0.727 min, p < 0.01).ConclusionThis early model of VFF accurately detected scotomas with high repeatability. However, its accuracy in localizing and quantifying the scotoma can be improved. Considering its portability and cost-effectiveness, VFF demonstrated potential as a general screening tool for moderate-to-severe glaucoma.

Dataset Information

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets