rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:690-694 doi:10.1136/bjo.87.6.690
  • Scientific correspondence

A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters

  1. J Landers1,
  2. A Sharma1,
  3. I Goldberg1,
  4. S Graham1,2
  1. 1Eye Associates, Park House, Macquarie Street, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2Save Sight Institute, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia
  1. Correspondence to: Dr John Landers, Park House, Floor 4, Suite 2, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia; landers{at}lisp.com.au
  • Accepted 18 October 2002

Abstract

Background: The Humphrey field analyser (HFA), Humphrey-Zeiss frequency doubling perimeter, and the Medmont automated perimeter (MAP) are three commonly used automated perimeters with threshold achromatic methodologies. Visual field loss may be detected earlier with strategies that target cell lines with reduced redundancy or which suffer selective damage.

Method: To compare these three perimeters, 63 subjects who were glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives, glaucoma patients, or normal controls were recruited selectively. All subjects underwent testing using MAP central threshold, MAP flicker perimetry, HFA full threshold, HFA SITA perimetry, HFA short wavelength perimetry (SWAP), and frequency doubling perimetry (FDP). After visual field testing, equivalent tests were compared: MAP central threshold with HFA full threshold and HFA SITA perimetry; Medmont flicker perimetry with HFA SWAP and FDP.

Results: On analysis of the MAP central threshold a kappa statistic and an area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of 0.90 and 0.94, respectively, were found compared with HFA full threshold strategies, and 0.87 and 0.92 respectively, compared with HFA SITA. For MAP flicker a kappa statistic and an AUC of 0.65 and 0.81, respectively, were found compared with HFA SWAP and 0.87 and 0.96, respectively, compared with FDP. A quadrant analysis and comparison of mean defect between tests was also highly significant.

Conclusion: Medmont and Humphrey perimeters correlated well; both may be used for clinical and research purposes with similar confidence.

Footnotes

    This Article

    1. Abstract
    2. Full text
    3. PDF
    5. Author Correction

    Responses

    1. Submit a response
    2. No responses published

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.