ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyzer and MP-3 Microperimeter in Patients With Glaucoma, Classified by Severity and Misalignment of Test Points.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare Nidek MP-3 microperimetry and ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) visual field (VF) results in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), classified by VF defect severity and to describe a novel method for simulating sensitivity distribution changes assumed to be due to fixation errors. Methods: This retrospective study used the MP-3 and HFA 10-2 tests to examine the VF in eyes with mild, moderate, or severe POAG, using 68 identical test points. Reliability indices and measurement durations were compared. The relationship between pointwise sensitivities of the devices was analyzed. Results: Thirty-five eyes from 23 patients (10 mild, 12 moderate, and 13 severe POAG) were evaluated. In the severe POAG group, the MP-3 had a significantly lower false-positive (FP) rate and higher false-negative rate than those of the HFA 10-2 (all, P = 0.03). A significant negative correlation existed between the root mean square error, derived from regression analysis comparing the VF sensitivity between devices at each test point, and VF sensitivity of the MP-3 (P < 0.01). In 18 eyes, a shift in the sensitivity distribution occurred, with a significant correlation between the HFA 10-2 mean deviation and the presence of this shift (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Reliability indices differed significantly between the two devices in severe POAG cases. A shift in the sensitivity of the test points of the two VF tests was detected in approximately one-half of the eyes. Translational Relevance: The MP-3 provides lower FP rates in advanced POAG and may assist in the management of this patient cohort.
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.