PURPOSE: To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA. METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits. RESULTS: MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.
PURPOSE: To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA. METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits. RESULTS:MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.
Authors: Robert P Finger; Peter Charbel Issa; Rolf Fimmers; Frank G Holz; Gary S Rubin; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Fred K Chen; Praveen J Patel; Wen Xing; Catey Bunce; Catherine Egan; Adnan T Tufail; Peter J Coffey; Gary S Rubin; Lyndon Da Cruz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katharina Kriechbaum; Franz Prager; Wolfgang Geitzenauer; Thomas Benesch; Christopher Schütze; Christian Simader; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: William S Tuten; Grace K Vergilio; Gloria J Young; Jean Bennett; Albert M Maguire; Tomas S Aleman; David H Brainard; Jessica I W Morgan Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-05-08
Authors: Daniel Ruminski; Grazyna Palczewska; Maciej Nowakowski; Agnieszka Zielińska; Vladimir J Kefalov; Katarzyna Komar; Krzysztof Palczewski; Maciej Wojtkowski Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Jennifer H Acton; R Theodore Smith; Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ann E Elsner; Benno L Petrig; Joel A Papay; Elli J Kollbaum; Christopher A Clark; Matthew S Muller Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Jennifer H Acton; Jonathan P Greenberg; Vivienne C Greenstein; Marcela Marsiglia; Mirela Tabacaru; R Theodore Smith; Stephen H Tsang Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Monica Daibert-Nido; Yulia Pyatova; Kyle G Cheung; Arun Reginald; Eduardo Garcia-Giler; Eric Bouffet; Samuel N Markowitz; Michael Reber Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Evan N Wong; Jehan D A De Soyza; David A Mackey; Ian J Constable; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 3.283