Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prospective observational study demonstrates strong diagnostic concordance between tablet and standard perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders, suggesting portable screening utility.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimeter in comparison with the Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) analyzer in detecting visual field defects in patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted on 15 patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions showing confirmed visual field defects on HVF. Each patient also underwent visual field testing using the MRF application on an iPad. Test results were reviewed by both masked and unmasked observers to classify defect patterns. Agreement between instruments and observers, test duration, and diagnostic value were analyzed. Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated substantial interobserver concordance. CONCLUSIONS: MRF perimetry provides results comparable to HVF in detecting neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects and offers a time-efficient and a cost-effective method, particularly useful for bedside or remote screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saluja et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: