ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of portable visual field-testing devices for detecting manifest glaucomatous visual-field loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
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.