Comparing Static Perimetry Protocols of Central Field Testing among Patients with Glaucoma.

SIGNIFICANCE: On comparing the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2C Faster, which tests 10 additional points in the central field, with the 24-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard for detecting central field defects, we found that the HFA 24-2C Faster may be used for the initial field evaluation in glaucoma with the advantage of a shorter testing time. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the HFA 24-2C Faster with the 24-2 SITA Standard and 10-2 among patients with glaucoma for the number of defective central points, global indices, and testing time. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 60 patients with glaucoma and glaucomatous visual field defects on the 24-2 SITA Standard algorithm underwent the 24-2C Faster and 10-2 field tests. The number of central points detected, global indices, and reliability indices were compared between the 24-2C Faster and the 24-2 SITA Standard and 10-2 field tests. RESULTS: The 24-2C Faster, on average, detected 5.5 defective points more on the total deviation plot and 2 defective points more on the pattern deviation plot than the 24-2 SITA Standard in central 10°. The 10-2 algorithm detected 2.5 times more points on the total deviation plot than the 24-2C Faster. There was excellent consistency by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 for the mean deviation and 0.93 for the pattern standard deviation between the 24-2C Faster and the 24-2 SITA Standard. There was good consistency by an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.80 for both mean deviation and pattern standard deviation between the 24-2C Faster and the 10-2. The testing time was significantly lower with the 24-2C Faster compared with the 24-2 SITA Standard and 10-2 test. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the HFA 24-2C Faster may be used for the initial evaluation of the visual field in glaucoma with the added advantage of a shorter testing time compared with the 24-2 SITA Standard program.

Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser.

PURPOSE: To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA). METHODS: A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program. RESULTS: The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices. CONCLUSION: Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.