Evaluation of the Melbourne Rapid Fields Test Procedure. Issue 4 (25th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Harris, Paul Alan; Johnson, Chris A.; Chen, Yuan; Fann, Hannah; Gafford, Gabrielle; Kim, Ye Ji; Mezgebu, Ellilta D.
• Is Part Of: Optometry and vision science. Volume 99:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 372
• Page End: 382
• Publication Date: 2022-04-25
• Subjects: Optometry -- Periodicals; Physiological optics -- Periodicals; Vision disorders -- Periodicals; 617.7505
• DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001889
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-5488

Abstract

Abstract : SIGNIFICANCE: Both the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet and home versions are easy-to-use, portable, and low-cost and accurate methods of evaluating visual fields. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the clinical capabilities of the MRF perimetry test by comparing it with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), determine MRF consistency, assess the influence of refractive error, ascertain ambient illumination effects, and evaluate the consistency between the tablet and Internet Web site versions of the MRF. METHODS: Forty healthy young participants with normal visual function (33 female, 7 male; average age, 24 years) underwent two MRF office-based tablet, two HFA tests, and two MRF Web site–based tests, one in our laboratory and one at home on their own computer using the 24-2 test pattern each time. An additional six healthy participants with normal visual function performed the 24-2 test with varying amounts of blur. RESULTS: The average individual sensitivity values of MRF and HFA were within 4.02 dB (right eye) and 4.15 dB (left eye). The dynamic range of the MRF was smaller (30 dB) than that of the HFA. When sensitivity values greater than 30 dB were excluded, the sensitivity differences were within 2.2 dB (right eye) and 2.46 dB (left eye) of each other. Only a small number of cases produced reliability values (false positives, false negatives, fixation losses) that were outside of normal limits. There was a high correlation between test results obtained with the tablet version of the MRF test when compared with the Internet-based Web site version. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative visual field testing and perimetric screening procedures can be performed effectively and can provide results that are comparable with bowl perimeter test results.