A Comparative Analysis of Visual Field Test Results Using Tablet-Based and Table-Mounted Devices in a Telemedicine...

Area of Science:

• Ophthalmology
• Medical Technology
• Telemedicine

Background:

• Underserved rural areas face challenges accessing specialized eye care, including visual field (VF) testing.
• Telemedicine offers a potential solution to bridge this gap, but requires validated diagnostic tools.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare visual field (VF) outcomes between a tablet-based device (Melbourne Rapid Fields [MRF]) and a table-mounted device (Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer [HFA]).
• To assess the feasibility of using MRF within a telemedicine program for rural populations.

Main Methods:

• Participants underwent VF testing using both HFA and MRF in a counterbalanced order.
• Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots for reliability indices, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PD)/visual capacity (VC).

Main Results:

• Moderate agreement was found between MRF and HFA for MD, PD, and VC (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.65).
• Fixation losses were higher with HFA, but no significant differences were noted for false positives/negatives.
• MRF showed higher PD and lower VC compared to HFA, with similar trends observed in both eyes.

Conclusions:

• The MRF demonstrates moderate agreement with the HFA for key visual field indices.
• These findings support the initial feasibility of integrating tablet-based perimetry into telemedicine programs for rural eye care.
• Further studies are necessary to establish the long-term reliability and clinical utility of MRF in telemedicine settings.