Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: To compare visual field results obtained using Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) iPad-based perimeter software and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard program in glaucoma patients. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: < 5% on PSD probability plot, and glaucoma hemifield test/color coded indicator. RESULTS: < 0.001). Other perimetric outcomes showed no significant differences between both. Bland-Altman plots showed that considerable variability existed between the programs. CONCLUSION: MRF is a good cost-effective, time-saving, user-friendly tool for monitoring visual fields in settings where access to traditional perimetry is limited. The lack of Internet strength in rural areas and questionable detection of early cases may be two points in MRF fields requiring an upgrade.
Kumar et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: