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: Comparison of the TEMPO Binocular Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Author: Nishida T, Weinreb R, Arias J, Vasile C, Moghimi S.
    Journal: Res Sq; 2023 Aug 29; ():. PubMed ID: 37693597.
    Abstract:
    This study compared between TEMPO, a new binocular perimeter, with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patients were tested with both TEMPO 24 - 2 AIZE-Rapid and HFA 24 - 2 SITA-Fast in a randomized sequence on the same day. Using a mixed-effects model, visual field (VF) parameters and reliability indices were compared. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured using Cirrus OCT, and coefficient of determinations for visual field and OCT parameters were calculated and compared using Akaike information criteria. 740 eyes (including 68 healthy, 262 glaucoma suspects, and 410 glaucoma) of 370 participants were evaluated. No significant differences were seen in mean deviation and visual field index between the two perimeters (P > 0.05). A stronger association between VF mean deviation and circumpapillary RNFL was found for TEMPO (adjusted R2 = 0.28; AIC = 5210.9) compared to HFA (adjusted R2 = 0.26; AIC = 5232.0). TEMPO had better reliability indices (fixation loss, false positive, and false negative) compared to HFA (all P < 0.05). Measurement time was faster for TEMPO compared to HFA (261sec vs. 429sec, P < 0.001). Further investigations are needed to assess the long-term monitoring potential of this binocular VF test.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]