ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Melbourne rapid fields (MRF) online perimetry is web-based software that allows white-on-white threshold perimetry using any computer. This study assesses the perimetric outcomes of MRF10-2 protocol via laptop computer in comparison to Humphrey field analyzer (HFA). Methods: This prospective and cross-sectional study included 91 eyes from 91 Japanese glaucoma patients. MRF10-2 visual field (VF) results were compared to HFA10-2 the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Standard, including mean deviation (MD), pattern deviation (PD), and reliability indexes. To assess test-retest reliability, patients completed two MRF assessments. Results: MRF demonstrated high level of agreement with HFA in evaluating MD (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.96-0.98]) and pattern standard deviation (PSD; ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -1.31 decibels (dB) (95% limits of agreement [LoA] = -7.21 dB, 4.59 dB) for MD and 0.71 dB (LoA = -3.55 dB, 4.97 dB) for PSD. It also demonstrated good MRF repeatability with a mean bias of 0.39 dB (LoA = -2.34 dB, 3.00 dB) for MD and -0.21 dB (LoA = -2.36 dB, 1.94 dB) for PSD. False-positives and -negatives were not statistically different between the two devices. MRF test time was significantly shorter than HFA (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MRF10-2 online perimetry offers portable approach for central VF assessment, but its measurements are not directly interchangeable with HFA and may exhibit higher variability, warranting caution in clinical interpretation. Translational Relevance: The novel protocol of portable online perimetry approach will assess central VF defects when standard equipment is unavailable.
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.