Dataset Information

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

ABSTRACT: To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.

SUBMITTER: Acton JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3204181 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

Acton Jennifer H JH Bartlett Nicholas S NS Greenstein Vivienne C VC

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 20111101 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, rang ...[more]

PMID: 21822159

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo conduct a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of visual field fast (VFF), a free iPad-based noise-field perimeter, in detecting glaucomatous scotomas versus the clinical-standard Humphrey visual field (HVF) test. VFF confronts subjects with a screen of flickering stimulus, allowing the immediate perception of scotomas.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of 66 glaucoma patients (66 eyes) and 30 healthy controls (30 eyes). All patients had no other visual field disorders. VFF was compared against HVF in terms of whole field and quadrants for the following: (1) correspondence in scotoma detection. (2) Agreement and correlation of the scotoma size (percentage of abnormal visual field area). (3) Test duration. Other domains tested included: (1) correlation of VFF scotoma area with the severity of visual field loss on HVF (mean deviation, MD; visual field index, VFI). (2) Repeatability of VFF. (3) Patient descriptors of scotomas.ResultsUsing HVF pattern deviation plot as a reference, VFF detected 52/57 (91.2%) of glaucoma subjects with 1 false-positive (control) (kappa = 0.86). 146/184 (79.3%) of abnormal quadrants (visual field defect present) were localized and 23/157 (14.6%) healthy quadrants were falsely identified as abnormal (kappa = 0.61). VFF underestimated scotoma area as compared to HVF (21.0% versus 44.0%, p < 0.01) but correlated positively (r = 0.268, p = 0.044) with HVF area and negatively with VFI (r = -0.340, p = 0.01) and MD (r = -0.398, p < 0.01). Using HVF total deviation plot as reference, VFF's glaucoma detection rate remained unchanged (kappa = 0.86) with similar quadrant detection (kappa = 0.68). However, a greater underestimation of scotoma area was observed (21.0% versus 85.4%, p < 0.01). VFF's quantitative repeatability was excellent for whole field (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC: 0.96; p < 0.0001) and quadrants (ICC: 0.82-0.96; all p < 0.001). Qualitatively, 35/37 (94.6%) of subjects reported reduced luminance and flicker in scotomas, with similar morphologies on retests. VFF is faster than HVF SITA-Standard in glaucoma (3.60 ± 1.85 min versus 6.92 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.01) and control (1.12 ± 0.486 min versus 5.16 ± 0.727 min, p < 0.01).ConclusionThis early model of VFF accurately detected scotomas with high repeatability. However, its accuracy in localizing and quantifying the scotoma can be improved. Considering its portability and cost-effectiveness, VFF demonstrated potential as a general screening tool for moderate-to-severe glaucoma.

Dataset Information

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

Publications

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets