This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Author Correction Correction (v87,p1054) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Landers, J Articles by Graham, S Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Landers, J Articles by Graham, S

A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters

¹ Eye Associates, Park House, Macquarie Street, Sydney, Australia
² Save Sight Institute, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr John Landers, Park House, Floor 4, Suite 2, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia;
landers{at}lisp.com.au

ABSTRACT
Background: 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.

Method: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: Medmont and Humphrey perimeters correlated well; both may be used for clinical and research purposes with similar confidence.

Keywords: Medmont perimetry; Humphrey perimetry; visual fields

Abbreviations: AAP, achromatic automated perimetry; AUC, area under the receiver operator curve; FDP, frequency doubling perimetry; HFA, Humphrey field analyser; MAP, Medmont automated perimeter; SITA, Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm; SWAP, short wavelength automated perimetry

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Landers, A. Sharma, I. Goldberg, and S. Graham A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2007; 91(10): 1285 - 1287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Phipps, T. M. Dang, A. J. Vingrys, and R. H. Guymer Flicker Perimetry Losses in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 3355 - 3360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. McKendrick, D. R. Badcock, and W. H. Morgan Psychophysical Measurement of Neural Adaptation Abnormalities in Magnocellular and Parvocellular Pathways in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2004; 45(6): 1846 - 1853. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. McKendrick and D. R. Badcock Decreased Visual Field Sensitivity Measured 1 Day, Then 1 Week, after Migraine Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2004; 45(4): 1061 - 1070. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]