ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Evaluating the ease of use and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field for visual field testing: A real-world experience.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the accessibility, accuracy (user-perceived reliability), user-friendliness, and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field (MRF) test for visual field evaluation in a real-world clinical setting.
methodsA prospective study was conducted involving patients undergoing routine visual field assessment for glaucoma, neurological conditions, or other visual disorders. Participants were tested using the MRF device, and their experiences, specifically comfort, satisfaction, ease of use, and acceptability, were recorded through structured questionnaires. The duration of the test and difficulties encountered by either clinicians or participants were also documented.
resultsA total of 369 patients were included. Age showed a negative correlation with ease of use (r = -0.142, P = 0.006), with younger participants finding the MRF more user-friendly. Higher education level was also associated with greater usability (r = -0.258, P = 0.001). Overall, 96.2% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the device was simple to use, and 84.3% reported satisfaction. A significant inverse relationship was found between test duration and satisfaction (P < 0.05), suggesting that patients who completed the test more quickly were more likely to report high satisfaction. Clinicians reported that minimal training was required to achieve satisfactory levels of perceived accuracy.
conclusionThe MRF test demonstrates promising potential as a convenient, efficient, and patient-friendly tool for visual field testing, with satisfactory user-perceived reliability in busy clinical environments. However, the absence of direct comparison with the Humphrey Field Analyzer is a key limitation.
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.