What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Melbourne Rapid Fields tablet perimeter compared with the standard Humphrey Visual Field analyzer in identifying visual field defects in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.

September 4, 2026Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility

A Pilot Study to Compare a Portable Tablet Perimeter with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Patients with Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

GSGunjan Saluja GLGS Lavanya VGVasudha Garg

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective observational study demonstrates strong diagnostic concordance between tablet and standard perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders, suggesting portable screening utility.

Key Points

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Melbourne Rapid Fields tablet perimeter compared with the standard Humphrey Visual Field analyzer in identifying visual field defects in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
Prospective observational study of 15 patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions and confirmed visual field defects on the Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) analyzer.
Each participant underwent visual field testing using the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) application on an iPad.
Visual field defect patterns were evaluated by masked and unmasked observers to analyze instrument agreement, interobserver concordance, and test duration.
MRF perimetry defect detection strongly aligned with HVF findings (p < .001).
Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated substantial interobserver concordance for defect pattern classifications.
Tablet perimetry provided a time-efficient and cost-effective testing alternative to standard perimetry.

Cite This Study

Saluja et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9a85b05d9e33f25c63113c https://doi.org/10.1080/2576117x.2026.2716549

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 4, 2026Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility

A Pilot Study to Compare a Portable Tablet Perimeter with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Patients with Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

GSGunjan Saluja GLGS Lavanya VGVasudha Garg

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective observational study demonstrates strong diagnostic concordance between tablet and standard perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders, suggesting portable screening utility.

Key Points

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Melbourne Rapid Fields tablet perimeter compared with the standard Humphrey Visual Field analyzer in identifying visual field defects in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
Prospective observational study of 15 patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions and confirmed visual field defects on the Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) analyzer.
Each participant underwent visual field testing using the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) application on an iPad.
Visual field defect patterns were evaluated by masked and unmasked observers to analyze instrument agreement, interobserver concordance, and test duration.
MRF perimetry defect detection strongly aligned with HVF findings (p < .001).
Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated substantial interobserver concordance for defect pattern classifications.
Tablet perimetry provided a time-efficient and cost-effective testing alternative to standard perimetry.

Cite This Study

Saluja et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9a85b05d9e33f25c63113c https://doi.org/10.1080/2576117x.2026.2716549

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark