Rarebit perimetry: normative values and test–retest variability
Article first published online: 27 APR 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology © 2011 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume 39, Issue 8, pages 752–759, November 2011
How to Cite
Chin, C.-F., Yip, L. W., Sim, D. C. and Yeo, A. C. (2011), Rarebit perimetry: normative values and test–retest variability. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 39: 752–759. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02555.x
- Issue published online: 3 NOV 2011
- Article first published online: 27 APR 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 15 MAR 2011 05:14AM EST
- Received 28 July 2010; accepted 11 February 2011.
- normative value;
- rarebit perimetry;
Background: We aim to establish normative values and evaluate test-retest variability for the central and foveal field tests of version 4 of rarebit perimetry.
Design: This was a prospective study undertaken in collaboration between Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, and Singapore Polytechnic.
Participants: Fifty-four normal subjects were recruited and included in the study.
Methods: Subjects underwent rarebit perimetry testing, studying the central and foveal fields. All subjects repeated the test within 1 month of the initial visit. The ‘mean hit rates’ of one eye of every subject were analysed.
Main Outcome Measures: Mean hit rates of subjects were analysed to establish normative values for the central and foveal fields. Test-retest variability was also analysed.
Results: Overall normative mean hit rates were 86.3 ± 13.95% for the central field and 91.6 ± 6.35% for the foveal field. For every increasing year of age, we found a 0.47% decrease in the central mean hit rates (P < 0.001). Normative mean hit rate for central and foveal fields were 90.6 ± 12.3% and 98.2 ± 3.7% respectively, in ‘young’ subjects, and 81.9 ± 15.6% and 85.0 ± 9.0% respectively, in ‘mature’ subjects. We found no significant test–retest variability in the foveal field (P = 0.554). There was significant test–retest variability in the central field (P < 0.001), but the difference was a 3.5 unit mean hit rate increase, which may be clinically significant.
Conclusions: Rarebit perimetry is repeatable and reliable. We have established normative values for two age groups.