ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparative Analysis of Melbourne Rapid Fields Web-Browser Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Chinese Glaucoma Patients.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and practicality of the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) web-browser based perimeter software, compared to the conventional Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Standard Protocol in a hospital environment in China. Methods: The study was conducted in a clinical practice setting from December 2023 to August 2024. A total of 113 Chinese speaking participants were enrolled, with 91 eyes from 91 patients included in the analysis. Participants underwent visual field (VF) testing using both HFA and MRF. MRF was conducted with computer audio guidance in Chinese. The primary outcome measures included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), test duration, and reliability indicators. Results: MRF returned a significant correlation with HFA for MD (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients [ICC] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82-0.95) and PSD (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.92). The average test duration was notably shorter for MRF (266 ± 41 seconds) compared to HFA (385 ± 83 seconds, P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -1.8 decibels (dB) for MD and 0.4 dB for PSD (HFA-MRF). Additionally, MRF demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 and 0.93 for MD and PSD, respectively. Furthermore, MRF found fewer false positive results. Conclusions: MRF offers a reliable, efficient, and patient-friendly alternative to traditional VF testing for Chinese patients. Its implementation could substantially improve access to glaucoma care, especially in underserved regions and for patients unable to attend regular clinic appointments. Translational Relevance: MRF enables accessible, efficient glaucoma care, offering a reliable alternative to HFA, particularly for underserved Chinese populations.
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.