+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma

Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma

Journal of Glaucoma 26(3): 292-297

To evaluate the reliability indices [fixation losses, false negative response rates (FN) and false positive response rates] and threshold sensitivities obtained from glaucoma patients with a Compass perimeter and to compare the same with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA). In a cross-sectional study, 97 eyes of 58 subjects (64 glaucoma and 33 glaucoma suspect eyes) underwent visual field examination with Compass and HFA. Any test with a fixation losses, FN or FP of >20% was considered unreliable. Reliability indices and threshold sensitivities between the 2 instruments were compared and the agreement evaluated using Bland and Altman analysis. In total, 37 tests (38%) with Compass and 17 (18%) with HFA were unreliable. The number of unreliable tests due to high FN (>20%) was significantly more (P=0.005) with Compass (n=27) than HFA (n=3). The mean difference [95% limits of agreement (LoA)] in mean sensitivity between Compass and HFA in the 51 eyes with reliable Compass and HFA results was -0.7 dB (-5.6, 4.3 dB). The point-wise threshold sensitivities with Compass were lower than that with HFA in central and temporal but higher in the nasal field. The 95% LoA ranged from -8 to +5 dB at one of the central points to -20 to +20 dB at one of the peripheral points. The numbers of unreliable tests were higher with Compass compared with HFA. The LoA between Compass and HFA for point-wise threshold sensitivities as well as the global indices were wide, implying that the instruments cannot be used interchangeably.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 059526835

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27977480

Related references

Automatic perimetry in glaucoma. Value of Humphrey Field Analyzer standard tests. Ophtalmologie 2(5): 449-456, 1988

Peripheral visual field testing in glaucoma by automated kinetic perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Archives of Ophthalmology 110(12): 1730-1732, 1992

Comparison of Tendency Oriented Perimetry fast strategy for program 32 and the glaucoma programs on the Octopus perimeter vs the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer program 24-2 in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. IOVS 40(4): S842, March 15, 1999

Comparison of the threshold value of SITA with that of conventional perimetry by Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. IOVS 41(4): S89, March 15, 2000

Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry. Acta Ophthalmologica 2018, 2018

Comparing the morphologic characteristics of the optic nerve as determined by the GDX in eyes with demonstrated glaucomatous visual field defects as measured by the Humphrey visual field analyzer. IOVS 40(4): S839, March 15, 1999

Studies of normal and early glaucoma subjects via the humphrey field analyzer 1. quantitative perimetry in normal subjects. Folia Ophthalmologica Japonica 40(3): 573, 1989

Eye movement perimetry using the Humphrey field analyzer. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 36(4): S170, 1995

A Comparison between the Compass Fundus Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Ophthalmology 2018, 2018

Comparison of results with frequency doubling perimetry and Humphrey C30-2 in eyes with high or normal tension glaucoma. IOVS 41(4): S87, March 15, 2000

Maximizing the dynamic range of the humphrey field analyzer for blue-on-yellow perimetry. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 13(4): 405-408, 1993

Fatigue and fluctuation in SITA standard and full-threshold perimetry of Humphrey field analyzer. IOVS 39(4): S492, March 15, 1998

Glaucoma diagnostic performance of humphrey matrix and standard automated perimetry. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 53(5): 482-485, 2009

Comparison between indices of Humphrey matrix and Humphrey perimetry in early glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Annals of Ophthalmology 39(4): 318-320, 2007

Peripheral visual field thresholds using Humphrey Field Analyzer program 60-4 in normal eyes. European Journal of Ophthalmology 21(4): 415-421, 2012