The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Ophthalmol.
Sec. Glaucoma
Volume 5 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950
Multi-Centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma
Provisionally accepted
Joyce Tiang 1*
Algis J Vingrys 2,3
Sarah Lin 4
Selwyn M Prea 2
Adam Ahmed Moktar 1
Allan Bank 5
Ashish Agar 4,6
Yu Xiang George Kong 1,2,3,7*- 1 The Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- 2 Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
- 3 Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- 4 University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
- 5 The Dubbo Eye Centre, Dubbo, Australia
- 6 Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- 7 Mount Waverley Eye Surgeons, Melbourne, Australia
Purpose. Visual 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. Methods. This 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. Results. Patient 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.MRF-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.
Keywords: Visual Field, rural medicine care, Portable perimeter, Glaucoma, Glaucoma &fields, Melbourne rapid field (MRF), SITA faster, Diagnostic accuracy (either seperate or as a replacement of diagnostic performance)
Received: 25 Aug 2024; Accepted: 06 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Tiang, Vingrys, Lin, Prea, Moktar, Bank, Agar and Kong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Joyce Tiang, The Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Yu Xiang George Kong, The Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.