Top

International Ophthalmology

Published in:

10-08-2022 | Glaucoma | Original Paper

Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser

Authors: Geeta Behera, Shradha Vijay Waghmare, Amala Ramasamy

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 2/2023

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Available only for authorised users

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)33647-9CrossRefPubMed

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)90493-5CrossRefPubMed

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.xCrossRef

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/BF00919030CrossRefPubMed

Zhang L, Drance SM, Douglas GR (1997) The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation. J Glaucoma 6:259–262CrossRefPubMed

Harwood LW, Remington LA (1999) A comparison of the synemed glaucoma and the humphrey 30–2 threshold perimetry tests. J Am Optom Assoc 70:240–244PubMed

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.87.6.690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.2016.251CrossRef

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

10.

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

11.

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;237:29-34CrossRefPubMed

12.

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)CrossRef

13.

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.2017.04.021CrossRefPubMed

14.

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/10.1155/2020/8384509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

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.0000000000001415CrossRefPubMed

16.

Quigley HA (2011) Glaucoma. Lancet 377:1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61423-7CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser
Authors: Geeta Behera
Shradha Vijay Waghmare
Amala Ramasamy
Publication date: 10-08-2022
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Keyword: Glaucoma
Published in: International Ophthalmology / Issue 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2023

Detection of coronavirus in tear samples of hospitalized patients with COVID-19

In vivo confocal microscopy of corneal nerve fiber damage in early course of multiple sclerosis

Analysis of antibiotic resistance and genetic profile of conjunctival bacteria flora before and after cataract surgery

Selective laser trabeculoplasty is safe and effective in patients previously treated with prostaglandin analogs: An evidence-based review

Comparison of central corneal thickness in healthy eyes using ultrasound pachymetry, non-contact specular microscopy and a high-resolution Scheimpflug camera

Refractive outcomes of scleral-sutured posterior chamber intraocular lenses in post-traumatic eyes