Agreement, Reliability, and Feasibility of Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimetry Compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the agreement, test–retest reliability, test duration, and patient acceptability of Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimetry compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-Standard perimetry in glaucoma patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 64 eyes of 64 patients with primary or secondary glaucoma. Participants underwent both HFA and MRF perimetry in a non-randomized sequence. Agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of MRF was evaluated in 47 participants after 4 weeks. Acceptability was assessed via questionnaires. Results: MRF demonstrated comparable reliability indices to HFA (p > 0.05), although these findings do not establish equivalent clinical reliability due to differences in platform-specific definitions. MRF demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability for MD (ICC 0.993), PD (ICC 0.992), and VC (ICC 0.992; all p < 0.001). Compared with HFA, MRF produced significantly less negative MD (−6.27 ± 5.55 vs. −8.32 ± 5.47 dB, p < 0.001) and higher PSD/PD (7.48 ± 3.26 vs. 6.33 ± 4.11 dB, p < 0.001), while VFI/VC did not differ significantly (p = 0.808). Overall agreement was good-to-excellent MD (ICC 0.949), PSD/PD (ICC 0.880), and VFI/VC (ICC 0.930). However, exploratory severity-stratified Bland–Altman analysis suggested greater variability in moderate and severe glaucoma. MRF was significantly faster than HFA (4.22 ± 0.81 vs. 5.46 ± 1.33 min, p < 0.001). All patients reported it was easy and comfortable. Conclusions: MRF provides excellent test–retest reliability, shorter testing duration, and high patient acceptability. While overall agreement is high, systematic differences and greater advanced-stage variability prevent direct interchangeability with HFA. Instead, MRF serves as a practical, complementary platform for accessible, frequent testing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16213528
Primary Topic
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Agreement, Reliability, and Feasibility of Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimetry Compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma

Teck Chee Cheng, Murshidah Hassan Basri, Jemaima Che Hamzah, Rona Asnida Nasaruddin
2 links
Diagnostics
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
article

Agreement, Reliability, and Feasibility of Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimetry Compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma

Teck Chee Cheng, Murshidah Hassan Basri, Jemaima Che Hamzah, Rona Asnida Nasaruddin
article en

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the agreement, test–retest reliability, test duration, and patient acceptability of Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimetry compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-Standard perimetry in glaucoma patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 64 eyes of 64 patients with primary or secondary glaucoma. Participants underwent both HFA and MRF perimetry in a non-randomized sequence. Agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of MRF was evaluated in 47 participants after 4 weeks. Acceptability was assessed via questionnaires. Results: MRF demonstrated comparable reliability indices to HFA (p > 0.05), although these findings do not establish equivalent clinical reliability due to differences in platform-specific definitions. MRF demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability for MD (ICC 0.993), PD (ICC 0.992), and VC (ICC 0.992; all p < 0.001). Compared with HFA, MRF produced significantly less negative MD (−6.27 ± 5.55 vs. −8.32 ± 5.47 dB, p < 0.001) and higher PSD/PD (7.48 ± 3.26 vs. 6.33 ± 4.11 dB, p < 0.001), while VFI/VC did not differ significantly (p = 0.808). Overall agreement was good-to-excellent MD (ICC 0.949), PSD/PD (ICC 0.880), and VFI/VC (ICC 0.930). However, exploratory severity-stratified Bland–Altman analysis suggested greater variability in moderate and severe glaucoma. MRF was significantly faster than HFA (4.22 ± 0.81 vs. 5.46 ± 1.33 min, p < 0.001). All patients reported it was easy and comfortable. Conclusions: MRF provides excellent test–retest reliability, shorter testing duration, and high patient acceptability. While overall agreement is high, systematic differences and greater advanced-stage variability prevent direct interchangeability with HFA. Instead, MRF serves as a practical, complementary platform for accessible, frequent testing.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(21)
Hospital Kuala Lumpur (MY), University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (MY), National University of Malaysia (MY)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon