A Pilot Study to Compare a Portable Tablet Perimeter with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Patients with Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimeter in comparison with the Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) analyzer in detecting visual field defects in patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted on 15 patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions showing confirmed visual field defects on HVF. Each patient also underwent visual field testing using the MRF application on an iPad. Test results were reviewed by both masked and unmasked observers to classify defect patterns. Agreement between instruments and observers, test duration, and diagnostic value were analyzed. Results 29 eyes were tested in total. The mean age of the subjects was 34.8 ± 1.86 years, and 73.3% were male. Diagnoses included suprasellar masses, traumatic optic neuropathy, occipital infarcts, optic neuritis, toxic optic neuropathy, and radiation-induced optic neuropathy. There was high agreement of visual field defect patterns between MRF and HVF. The mean test duration for HVF and MRF was 268.86 s and 238.38 s respectively (p < .001). Cohen’s kappa coefficient demonstrated substantial interobserver concordance. Conclusions MRF perimetry provides results comparable to HVF in detecting neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects and offers a time-efficient and a cost-effective method, particularly useful for bedside or remote screening.