Narayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital.
Samsung Research and Development Institute India, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
J Glaucoma. 2021 Apr 1;30(4):e146-e152. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001797.
The agreement between a head-mounted perimeter [GearVision (GV)] and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) for total threshold sensitivity was a mean difference of -1.9 dB (95% limits of agreement -5 to 1). GV was the preferred perimeter in 68.2% of participants.
The purpose of this study was to compare reliability indices and threshold sensitivities obtained using a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GV) with the HFA in normal, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma patients. A secondary objective was to evaluate the subjective experience participants had with both perimeters using a questionnaire.
In a prospective, cross-sectional study; 107 eyes (34 glaucoma, 18 glaucoma suspect, and 55 normal) of 54 participants underwent HFA and GV in random order. The main outcome measure was the agreement of threshold sensitivities using Bland and Altman analysis. Participants also completed a questionnaire about their experience with the devices.
Median false-positive response rate for GV was 7% (4% to 12%), while for HFA it was 0% (0% to 6%, P<0.001). Median false-negative response rate was similar for both tests. In all, 84 eyes with reliable HFA and GV results were included in the final analysis. Median threshold sensitivity of all 52 points on HFA was 29.1 dB (26.5 to 30.7 dB) and for GV was 30.6 dB (29.1 to 32.6 dB; P<0.001). Mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in total threshold sensitivity between HFA and GV was -1.9 dB (-5 to 1 dB). The 95% limits of agreement were fairly narrow (-8 to 2 dB) across the 6 Garway-Heath sectors. Most participants preferred to perform GV (68.2%) if required to repeat perimetry compared with HFA (20.6%, P<0.001).
There was fairly good agreement between the threshold sensitivities of GV and HFA. GV was also preferred by most patients and could potentially supplement HFA as a portable or home perimeter.
头戴式周边视野计[GearVision（GV）]与 Humphrey 视野分析仪（HFA）的总阈值敏感度之间的一致性为平均差值-1.9dB（95%一致性界限为-5 至 1dB）。在 68.2%的参与者中，GV 是首选的周边视野计。
本研究旨在比较新型智能手机头戴式周边视野计（GV）与 HFA 在正常、青光眼疑似和青光眼患者中获得的可靠性指标和阈值敏感度。次要目的是使用问卷评估参与者对两种周边视野计的主观体验。
在一项前瞻性、横断面研究中，54 名参与者的 107 只眼（34 只青光眼、18 只青光眼疑似和 55 只正常眼）接受了 HFA 和 GV 的随机顺序检查。主要观察指标为使用 Bland 和 Altman 分析评估阈值敏感度的一致性。参与者还完成了一份关于他们使用设备的体验的问卷。
GV 的假阳性反应率中位数为 7%（4%至 12%），而 HFA 的假阳性反应率中位数为 0%（0%至 6%，P<0.001）。两种测试的假阴性反应率中位数相似。最终分析纳入了 84 只具有可靠 HFA 和 GV 结果的眼睛。HFA 上所有 52 个点的中位阈值敏感度为 29.1dB（26.5 至 30.7dB），GV 的中位阈值敏感度为 30.6dB（29.1 至 32.6dB；P<0.001）。HFA 和 GV 之间总阈值敏感度的平均差值（95%一致性界限）为-1.9dB（-5 至 1dB）。95%一致性界限在 6 个 Garway-Heath 扇区相当狭窄（-8 至 2dB）。与 HFA（20.6%，P<0.001）相比，如果需要重复视野检查，大多数参与者更喜欢使用 GV。
GV 和 HFA 的阈值敏感度之间存在相当好的一致性。GV 也受到大多数患者的青睐，并且可能作为一种便携式或家庭周边视野计来补充 HFA。
