Clinical Publications

TEMPO

Comparison of Portable Perimetry Tests with the Humphrey® Field Analyzer (HFA™)

AUTHORS:

Lin M; Zhao Y; Freeman S; Kang J; De Arrigunaga S; Friedman DS; Liebman DL; Roldan AM; Chang D; Elze T

PUBLICATION:

Presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology meeting, 2022

Study Purpose

To compare Melbourne Rapid Fields and IMOvifa outputs to the HFA 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program

Overview

Study Design

Pilot observational study

# of Eyes/
Patients

50 patients

Study Device

IMO Smart Visual Function Analyzer (IMOvifa)*
Humphrey® Field Analyzer (HFA™)
Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF)

Outcome Measures

Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and point sensitivity

Results

MD for all three devices was not significantly different; HFA vs. IMOvifa CI= [-0.30 to 1.38], p=0.205; HFA vs. MRF CI=[-0.75 to 0.93], p=0.837
PSD was comparable among the three devices; HFA vs. IMOvifa CI=[-0.05 to 1.18, p=0.070]; HFA vs. MRF CI=[- 0.65 to 0.57], p=0.905
MRF and IMOvifa point sensitivities differed from those of HFA. IMOvifa generally reported lower sensitivity versus HFA (Figure 1)

IMOvifa reduced measurement time by

39%

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1.

Point by point analysis of sensitivities at each testing location comparing (a) HFA and IMOvifa and (b) HFA and MRF. Locations and degrees of significantly different values are shown (all eyes plotted as right eye). Adapted from Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1278 – A0418.

Conclusions

Global indices of mean deviation and pattern standard deviation are comparable between IMO Smart Visual Function Analyzer and Humphrey Field analyzer, while point-by-point comparisons may show a small bias on IMOvifa.