Get access

Comparison of visual field sensitivities between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser

Authors

  • John Landers MBBS PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Eye Associates, Sydney, New South Wales,
    2. Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia,
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Alok Sharma FRANZCO,

    1. Eye Associates, Sydney, New South Wales,
    2. Riverina Eye Care Centre, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales,
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ivan Goldberg FRANZCO,

    1. Eye Associates, Sydney, New South Wales,
    2. Save Sight Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, New South Wales,
    3. Glaucoma Services, Sydney Eye Hospital, New South Wales, and
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Stuart L Graham PhD FRANZCO

    1. Eye Associates, Sydney, New South Wales,
    2. Save Sight Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, New South Wales,
    3. Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr John Landers, Park House, Floor 4, Suite 2, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Email: john.landers@bigpond.com

Abstract

Background:  Two commonly used perimeters in Australia and in many parts of Asia are the Humphrey field analyser II (HFA) and the Medmont automated perimeter (MAP). Each device maps the incremental light threshold of the visual field and describes the sensitivity at each point in ‘decibels’ (dB); however, these values are not interchangeable between devices. This study was designed to compare directly the sensitivity values of HFA and MAP visual fields.

Methods:  Sixty-three subjects who had suspected glaucoma, ocular hypertension or glaucoma, or were normal controls were recruited selectively. One eye from each patient was tested with the MAP and HFA in random order on the same day. Corresponding points between the two tests were identified and their sensitivities were compared.

Results:  Sensitivities between MAP and HFA were strongly correlated (r2 = 0.45; P < 0.0001), with the relationship between them being described by the linear equation: MAP = 0.75*(HFA) − 0.87. On average, across the entire field MAP sensitivities were 7.4 dB (standard deviation 4.6 dB) lower than HFA. However, this relationship was modified by eccentricity and field sensitivity loss.

Conclusion:  Visual field sensitivities for MAP and HFA may be related by a linear relationship. Theoretical and clinical predictions that this difference may be on average approximately 5 dB have been confirmed.

Ancillary