Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2024 Sep-Oct;7(5):445-453. doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2024.05.003. Epub 2024 May 30.
To evaluate the agreement between 24-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained using the gaze analyzing perimeter (GAP; Findex) and the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).
Cross-sectional study.
Patients underwent HFA 24-2 for suspected or confirmed VF loss and were treated at the Kyoto University Hospital between December 2022 and July 2023.
Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using HFA and GAP 24-2 tests. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare GAP and HFA results. Examination points where the sensitivity measured using GAP was ≥ 10 dB higher than that measured using HFA were re-evaluated by referring back to the original gaze data; 2 ophthalmologists assessed whether the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target.
Mean deviation (MD) and elapsed time on an individual basis and sensitivity on an examination point basis.
Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the MD using HFA and GAP was 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683-0.891). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and GAP tests. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in MD between HFA and GAP results was -0.63 dB (-5.81 to 4.54 dB). Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the elapsed time (P = 0.99), measurements completed within 200 seconds were observed only in the GAP group (11 cases, 23.4%), who had significantly better HFA MD value than others (P = 0.001). On an examination point basis for sensitivity, the correlation coefficient between HFA and GAP was 0.691 (95% limits of agreement, 0.670-0.711). Original gaze data assessment revealed that the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target for 70.2% of the examination points with a sensitivity discrepancy.
The results indicate that the GAP provides VF assessment outcomes comparable to those of the HFA. The GAP exhibited advantages in terms of testing time, particularly in patients with minimal VF impairment. Furthermore, the GAP records all eye movements, enabling the objective determination of VF abnormalities based on gaze patterns and facilitating easy posthoc verification.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
评估使用注视分析周边仪（GAP；Findex）和 Humphrey 视野分析仪（HFA；Carl Zeiss Meditec）获得的 24-2 视野（VF）测试结果之间的一致性。
横断面研究。
2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 7 月在京都大学医院疑似或确诊 VF 丧失的患者接受了 HFA 24-2 检查。
患者对同一只眼进行连续的 HFA 和 GAP 24-2 测试。使用 Bland-Altman 分析比较 GAP 和 HFA 的结果。对使用 GAP 测量的敏感度比使用 HFA 测量的敏感度高 10dB 以上的检查点，通过参考原始注视数据进行重新评估；2 名眼科医生评估注视是否线性移动到新的测试目标。
个体的平均偏差（MD）和时间以及检查点的敏感度。
分析了 47 名患者的 47 只眼。使用 HFA 和 GAP 进行 MD 分析的相关系数为 0.811（95%置信区间[CI]：0.683-0.891）。Bland-Altman 分析显示 HFA 和 GAP 测试之间具有良好的一致性。HFA 和 GAP 结果之间 MD 的平均差异（95%一致性区间）为-0.63dB（-5.81 至 4.54dB）。尽管在时间方面没有观察到统计学上的显著差异（P=0.99），但仅在 GAP 组（11 例，23.4%）中观察到在 200 秒内完成的测量，他们的 HFA MD 值明显优于其他人（P=0.001）。在检查点的敏感度方面，HFA 和 GAP 之间的相关系数为 0.691（95%一致性区间，0.670-0.711）。对原始注视数据的评估显示，在敏感度差异的 70.2%的检查点，注视线性移动到新的测试目标。
结果表明，GAP 提供的 VF 评估结果与 HFA 相当。GAP 在测试时间方面具有优势，特别是在 VF 损伤最小的患者中。此外，GAP 记录所有的眼球运动，能够根据注视模式客观确定 VF 异常，并便于事后进行验证。
