Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026
Author Spotlight: Assessment of Visual Acuity in Central Vision Loss Through Motion-Based Peripheral Vision Testing
Published on: February 23, 2024
Evaluating the ease of use and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field for visual field testing: A
Shibal Bhartiya1, Yu Xiang George Kong2, Prasanna V Ramesh3
1Department of Ophthalmology, Marengo Asia Hospitals, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
Purpose:
This study aims to evaluate the accessibility, accuracy (user-perceived reliability), user-friendliness, and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field (MRF) test for visual field evaluation in a real-world clinical setting.
Methods:
A prospective study was conducted involving patients undergoing routine visual field assessment for glaucoma, neurological conditions, or other visual disorders. Participants were tested using the MRF device, and their experiences, specifically comfort, satisfaction, ease of use, and acceptability, were recorded through structured questionnaires. The duration of the test and difficulties encountered by either clinicians or participants were also documented.
Results:
A total of 369 patients were included. Age showed a negative correlation with ease of use (r = -0.142, P = 0.006), with younger participants finding the MRF more user-friendly. Higher education level was also associated with greater usability (r = -0.258, P = 0.001). Overall, 96.2% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the device was simple to use, and 84.3% reported satisfaction. A significant inverse relationship was found between test duration and satisfaction (P < 0.05), suggesting that patients who completed the test more quickly were more likely to report high satisfaction. Clinicians reported that minimal training was required to achieve satisfactory levels of perceived accuracy.
Conclusion:
The MRF test demonstrates promising potential as a convenient, efficient, and patient-friendly tool for visual field testing, with satisfactory user-perceived reliability in busy clinical environments. However, the absence of direct comparison with the Humphrey Field Analyzer is a key limitation.
