Test Reliability and Compliance to a Twelve-Month Visual Field Telemedicine Study in Glaucoma Patients.

Background: Our primary aim is to quantify test reliability and compliance of glaucoma patients to a weekly visual field telemedicine (VFTM) schedule. A secondary aim is to determine concordance of the VFTM results to in-clinic outcomes. Methods: Participants with stable glaucoma in one eye were recruited for a 12 month VFTM trial using the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF-home, MRFh) iPad application. Participants attended routine 6 month clinical reviews and were tasked with weekly home monitoring with the MRFh over this period. We determined compliance to weekly VFTM (7 + 1 days) and test reliability (false positives (FPs) and fixation loss (FL) <33%). A secondary aim considered concordance to in-clinic measures of visual field (MRF-clinic (MRFc) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA)) in active participants (≥10 home examinations and 5 reliable HFA examinations). The linear trend in the MRFh mean deviation (MD) was compared to the HFA guided progression analysis (GPA) using Bland−Altman methods. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. Results: Forty-seven participants with a mean age of 64 ± 14.6 years were recruited for the trial. The VFTM uptake was 85% and compliance to weekly home monitoring was 75% in the presence of weekly text reminders in the analysed group (n = 20). The analysed group was composed of test subjects with five reliable in-clinic HFA examinations (GPA analysis available) and who submitted a minimum of 10 MRFh examinations from home. Of the 757 home examinations returned, approximately two-thirds were reliable, which was significantly lower than the test reliability of the HFA in-clinic (MRFh: 65% vs. HFA: 85%, p < 0.001). The HFA-GPA analysis gave little bias from the MRFh slope (bias: 0.05 dB/yr, p > 0.05). Two eyes were found to have clinical progression during the 12 month period, and both were detected by VFTM. Conclusions: VFTM over 12 months returned good compliance (75%) to weekly testing with good concordance to in-clinic assays. VFTM is a viable option for monitoring patients with glaucoma for visual field progression in between clinical visits.

Scaling the size of perimetric stimuli reduces variability and returns constant thresholds across the visual field.

The conventional stimulus for standard automated perimetry is fixed in size, giving elevated contrast thresholds and reduced test reliability in the periphery. Here, we test the hypothesis that appropriate scaling of the size of perimetric stimuli will return fixed thresholds and reduced variability across the visual field. We derived frequency-of-seeing (FOS) curves in five healthy subjects at central (3 degrees) and peripheral (27 degrees) locations with a method of constant stimuli (MOCS) using a desktop LCD display. FOS curves for a Goldmann III (GIII) stimulus were compared with those for size scaled spots. To consider clinical translation, we tested a further five healthy subjects (22-24 years) with the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimeter at several locations spanning 1 degree to 25 degrees from fixation, deriving FOS curves (MOCS) and also conducting repeated adaptive clinical thresholding to assess intra- and interobserver variability. We found that GIII contrast thresholds were significantly elevated in the periphery compared with the parafovea, with concomitant reduction of FOS slope. Using appropriately size scaled spots, threshold and slope differences between these locations were significantly reduced. FOS data collected with the tablet perimeter confirmed that size scaling confers broad equivalence of the shape of the FOS curve across the visual field. Repeated adaptive thresholding with size scaled stimuli gave relatively constant intra-observer variability across the visual field, which compares favorably with published normative data obtained with the GIII stimulus. The reduced variability will improve signal-to-noise ratio for correct classification of normal visual field test results, whereas the lower contrast thresholds yield greater dynamic range, which should improve the ability to reliably monitor moderate defects.

Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer.

PURPOSE: To establish the medium-term repeatability of the iPad perimetry app Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast programs. DESIGN: Multicenter longitudinal observational clinical study. METHODS: Sixty patients (stable glaucoma/ocular hypertension/glaucoma suspects) were recruited into a 6-month longitudinal clinical study with visits planned at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. At each visit patients undertook visual field assessment using the MRF perimetry application and either HFA SITA-fast (n = 21) or SITA-standard (n = 39). The primary outcome measure was the association and repeatability of mean deviation (MD) for the MRF and HFA tests. Secondary measures were the point-wise threshold and repeatability for each test, as well as test time. RESULTS: MRF was similar to SITA-fast in speed and significantly faster than SITA-standard (MRF 4.6 ± 0.1 minutes vs SITA-fast 4.3 ± 0.2 minutes vs SITA-standard 6.2 ± 0.1 minutes, P < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between MRF and SITA-fast for MD at the 4 visits ranged from 0.71 to 0.88. ICC values between MRF and SITA-standard for MD ranged from 0.81 to 0.90. Repeatability of MRF MD outcomes was excellent, with ICC for baseline and the 6-month visit being 0.98 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-0.99). In comparison, ICC at 6-month retest for SITA-fast was 0.95 and SITA-standard 0.93. Fewer points changed with the MRF, although for those that did, the MRF gave greater point-wise variability than did the SITA tests. CONCLUSIONS: MRF correlated strongly with HFA across 4 visits over a 6-month period, and has good test-retest reliability. MRF is suitable for monitoring visual fields in settings where conventional perimetry is not readily accessible.