ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2020
Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- The Melbourne rapid field test: Usability and clinical promise.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Visual Field Test Results Using Tablet-Based and Table-Mounted Devices in a Telemedicine Program Set in Underserved Areas.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Visual screening in an orthogeriatric rehabilitation setting: a feasibility evaluation.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Feasibility and performance of eye movement perimetry for glaucoma triage in Tanzania: A prospective cross-sectional study in a real-world setting.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the ease of use and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field for visual field testing: A real-world experience.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of Melbourne Rapid Fields Web-Browser Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Chinese Glaucoma Patients.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Current perspectives in tackling glaucoma blindness.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- A systematic review of the current availability of mobile applications in eyecare practices.European journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Virtual Reality-Based and Conventional Visual Field Examination Comparison in Healthy and Glaucoma Patients.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- [Is home perimetry possible?]Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia · 2021Article
- Comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Response to comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of New Visual Field Screening Software for Diagnosing Hemianopia.Eye and brain · 2021Article
- Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual field results obtained using Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) iPad-based perimeter software and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard program in glaucoma patients.
designA cross-sectional observational study.
methodsIn this single-centre study involving patients diagnosed with glaucoma, the perimetric outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Outcomes included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI)/visual capacity (VC), foveal threshold, test time, number of points depressed at
resultsThe study included 28 eyes of 28 glaucoma patients. Mean (standard deviation) test times were 342.07 (56.70) seconds for MRF and 375.11 (88.95) for HFA 24-2 SITA standard (
conclusionMRF is a good cost-effective, time-saving, user-friendly tool for monitoring visual fields in settings where access to traditional perimetry is limited. The lack of Internet strength in rural areas and questionable detection of early cases may be two points in MRF fields requiring an upgrade.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.