Young I M, Rait J L, Guest C S, Carson C A, Taylor H R
University of Melbourne Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1994 May;22(2):95-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1994.tb00773.x.
As part of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a substudy was performed to determine the efficacy of the newly released Fastpac program for the Humphrey Field Analyser. A comparison was performed of the Fastpac and conventional full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in 39 eyes of 36 participants. Also a comparison study was performed of the standard and non-standard 80-point screening tests to the standard 24-2 full threshold test in 23 eyes of 23 participants. In the full threshold comparison there was 100% agreement between the two with Fastpac being 32% to 39% faster than standard. In the 80-point screening test comparison, non-standard was no faster than standard. Sensitivities were 17/17 (1.0) for non-standard and 15/18 (0.83) for standard, as compared with the standard 24-2 full threshold test. Fastpac software offers accurate screening and threshold testing in less time than the standard algorithm.
