Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:43 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
International ophthalmology - 43(2023), 2 vom: 10. Feb., Seite 557-565 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Behera, Geeta [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Glaucoma |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 01.03.2023 Date Revised 01.03.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM344666166 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM344666166 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226023313.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1148.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM344666166 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35947251 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Behera, Geeta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 01.03.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 01.03.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. | ||
| 520 | |a 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) | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Glaucoma | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Glaufield Lite perimeter | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Humphrey Field Analyser | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Static automated perimetry | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Visual field test | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Waghmare, Shradha Vijay |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ramasamy, Amala |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International ophthalmology |d 1993-1994 |g 43(2023), 2 vom: 10. Feb., Seite 557-565 |w (DE-627)NLM000466077 |x 1573-2630 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:43 |g year:2023 |g number:2 |g day:10 |g month:02 |g pages:557-565 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 43 |j 2023 |e 2 |b 10 |c 02 |h 557-565 | ||