Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2026
07:11
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
6.8K
Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer
Kae Sugihara1, Yu Xiang George Kong2,3, Mitsuto Hosokawa1
1Department of Ophthalmology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Translational Vision Science & Technology
|September 10, 2025
Summary
Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) online perimetry shows good agreement with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) for glaucoma visual field assessment. However, MRF measurements are not directly interchangeable with HFA, requiring careful clinical interpretation.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Medical Technology
- Visual Science
Background:
- Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) is web-based software for white-on-white threshold perimetry.
- Assessing visual fields (VF) is crucial for glaucoma diagnosis and management.
- Standard perimetry devices can be cumbersome and expensive.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the perimetric outcomes of the MRF10-2 protocol using a laptop computer.
- To compare MRF10-2 results with those obtained from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).
Main Methods:
- A prospective, cross-sectional study involving 91 Japanese glaucoma patients.
- MRF10-2 visual field results were compared to HFA10-2 SITA-Standard.
- Key metrics included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and reliability indexes.
- Test-retest reliability of MRF was assessed with two separate assessments.
Main Results:
- MRF demonstrated high agreement with HFA for MD (ICC=0.97) and PSD (ICC=0.94).
- Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal bias but wide limits of agreement for MD and PSD.
- MRF exhibited good repeatability and comparable false-positive/negative rates to HFA.
- MRF testing was significantly faster than HFA.
Conclusions:
- MRF10-2 offers a portable solution for central visual field assessment.
- MRF measurements are not directly interchangeable with HFA and may show higher variability.
- Caution is advised during clinical interpretation of MRF results.
