Tablet, website Melbourne Rapid Fields procedures show high test-retest reliability
BOSTON – Both tablet-based and website-based Melbourne Rapid Fields tests had high test-retest reliability, with highly correlated results among young, healthy study participants, according to data presented at the American Academy of Optometry annual meeting.
Chris Johnson, PhD, FAAO, from the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Iowa, and colleagues also compared the tablet-based and website-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tests with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Standard test.
The study comprised 40 adults with an average age of 24 years. All participants performed two tablet-based and two website-based MRF tests and two HFA 24-2 SITA Standard procedures.
Testing for both the tablet-based and website-based versions were done at 33 cm with standard distance refractive correction for all tests.
The average MRF sensitivity values were within the 4.02 dB (right eye) and 4.15 dB (left eye) HFA average sensitivities. After removing HFA sensitivity values higher than 30 dB, the MRF sensitivities were within 2.2 dB (right eye) and 2.46 dB (left eye) of the HFA sensitivities.
“These results were probably due to different target sizes, test procedures and other aspects of the study,” Johnson said during a virtual academy-sponsored press conference.
The tablet-based MRF had a test-retest difference of 0.04 dB for the right eye and 0.05 dB for the left eye. The website-based MRF was slightly higher at less than 0.23 dB for both eyes.
“The tablet and websites have high test-retest reliability, they correlate well with each other, and the test time is shorter than SITA Standard and slightly longer than SITA Fast,” Johnson said in his conclusion. “Dynamic intensity range is slightly smaller than the Humphrey Field Analyzer, but it correlates highly with it. It is also easy to sanitize, and testing can be performed at just about any location or at home.”