Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression.

PRCIS: Participant surveys taken after using tablet-based and smart visual function analyzer (SVFA) perimetry tests suggest that patients may prefer novel perimetry tests over traditional visual field machines. PURPOSE: Compare patient experience using the IMOvifa SVFA and the tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields visual field (VF) tests to the Humphrey Field 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study on adult participants with diagnoses of glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma. Participants attended 2 study visits ~3 months apart. During the first visit, participants were trained to use the 2 novel perimeters, took 1 test on both new devices and the Humphrey Field Analyzer, then were surveyed. Participants received tablets and performed weekly tablet VF tests at home between study visits. At the final study visit, participants re-took the VF tests and completed the same surveys. RESULTS: Eighty-one participants were surveyed twice. At the baseline survey, participants preferred the SVFA (71.7%) and tablet tests (69.2%) over the Humphrey VF. Most were willing to perform weekly monitoring at home on the SVFA (69.1%) and tablet (75.4%). Participants generally had a "very good" overall experience when testing on the SVFA (71.6%) and tablet (90.1%). At the final visit, fewer participants were willing to test on the tablet daily (23.5% to 9.9%; P = 0.02 for change) and more were willing to test monthly (18.5% to 33.3%; P = 0.03 for change). CONCLUSION: Users reported a preference for novel VF devices. Overall participant experience using these devices was positive, supporting the feasibility of home monitoring of VFs from an experience perspective.

Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer.

PURPOSE: The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers. METHODS: Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity. RESULTS: Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26-79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was -2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet. CONCLUSIONS: Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.