Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, Graham S
Eye Associates, Park House, Macquarie Street, Sydney, Australia Save Sight Institute, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jun;87(6):690-4. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.6.690.
The Humphrey field analyser (HFA), Humphrey-Zeiss frequency doubling perimeter, and the Medmont automated perimeter (MAP) are three commonly used automated perimeters with threshold achromatic methodologies. Visual field loss may be detected earlier with strategies that target cell lines with reduced redundancy or which suffer selective damage.
To compare these three perimeters, 63 subjects who were glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives, glaucoma patients, or normal controls were recruited selectively. All subjects underwent testing using MAP central threshold, MAP flicker perimetry, HFA full threshold, HFA SITA perimetry, HFA short wavelength perimetry (SWAP), and frequency doubling perimetry (FDP). After visual field testing, equivalent tests were compared: MAP central threshold with HFA full threshold and HFA SITA perimetry; Medmont flicker perimetry with HFA SWAP and FDP.
On analysis of the MAP central threshold a kappa statistic and an area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of 0.90 and 0.94, respectively, were found compared with HFA full threshold strategies, and 0.87 and 0.92 respectively, compared with HFA SITA. For MAP flicker a kappa statistic and an AUC of 0.65 and 0.81, respectively, were found compared with HFA SWAP and 0.87 and 0.96, respectively, compared with FDP. A quadrant analysis and comparison of mean defect between tests was also highly significant.
Medmont and Humphrey perimeters correlated well; both may be used for clinical and research purposes with similar confidence.
汉弗莱视野分析仪（HFA）、汉弗莱 - 蔡司倍频视野计和Medmont自动视野计是三种常用的采用阈值消色差方法的自动视野计。采用针对冗余性降低或遭受选择性损伤的细胞系的策略，可能更早检测到视野缺损。
为比较这三种视野计，选择性招募了63名青光眼疑似患者、高眼压症患者、青光眼患者或正常对照者。所有受试者均接受了使用Medmont中心阈值、Medmont闪烁视野计、HFA全阈值、HFA SITA视野计、HFA短波长视野计（SWAP）和倍频视野计（FDP）的检测。视野检测后，对等效测试进行了比较：Medmont中心阈值与HFA全阈值及HFA SITA视野计；Medmont闪烁视野计与HFA SWAP及FDP。
分析Medmont中心阈值时，与HFA全阈值策略相比，kappa统计量和受试者操作特征曲线下面积（AUC）分别为0.90和0.94，与HFA SITA相比分别为0.87和0.92。对于Medmont闪烁视野计，与HFA SWAP相比，kappa统计量和AUC分别为0.65和0.81，与FDP相比分别为0.87和0.96。象限分析以及测试间平均缺损的比较也具有高度显著性。
Medmont视野计和汉弗莱视野计相关性良好；两者均可用于临床和研究目的，可信度相似。
