These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparing the Performance of Compass Perimetry With Humphrey Field Analyzer in Eyes With Glaucoma.
    Author: Rao HL, Raveendran S, James V, Dasari S, Palakurthy M, Reddy HB, Pradhan ZS, Rao DA, Puttaiah NK, Devi S.
    Journal: J Glaucoma; 2017 Mar; 26(3):292-297. PubMed ID: 27977480.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability indices [fixation losses, false negative response rates (FN) and false positive response rates] and threshold sensitivities obtained from glaucoma patients with a Compass perimeter and to compare the same with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA). METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 97 eyes of 58 subjects (64 glaucoma and 33 glaucoma suspect eyes) underwent visual field examination with Compass and HFA. Any test with a fixation losses, FN or FP of >20% was considered unreliable. Reliability indices and threshold sensitivities between the 2 instruments were compared and the agreement evaluated using Bland and Altman analysis. RESULTS: In total, 37 tests (38%) with Compass and 17 (18%) with HFA were unreliable. The number of unreliable tests due to high FN (>20%) was significantly more (P=0.005) with Compass (n=27) than HFA (n=3). The mean difference [95% limits of agreement (LoA)] in mean sensitivity between Compass and HFA in the 51 eyes with reliable Compass and HFA results was -0.7 dB (-5.6, 4.3 dB). The point-wise threshold sensitivities with Compass were lower than that with HFA in central and temporal but higher in the nasal field. The 95% LoA ranged from -8 to +5 dB at one of the central points to -20 to +20 dB at one of the peripheral points. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of unreliable tests were higher with Compass compared with HFA. The LoA between Compass and HFA for point-wise threshold sensitivities as well as the global indices were wide, implying that the instruments cannot be used interchangeably.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]