4 4 6 2 8

论文已发表


注册即可获取德孚的最新动态



IF 收录期刊










更多详情 >>



停止接受任何荟萃分析文章 (Meta-analysis)

请注意:我们所有期刊已于 2019 年 4 月 1 日停止接受任何荟萃分析 (Meta-analysis)文章的提交。


会员计划

我们很高兴为机构提供一种切实的方法以支持开放获取并鼓励教师和研究人员通过开放获取模式尽可能广泛地传播他们的作品。

更多详情 >>

 

视频

Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

 

Authors Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H

Received 15 October 2018

Accepted for publication 24 January 2019

Published 14 March 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 501—513

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S190995

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Purpose: The head-mounted automated perimeter imo® is a new portable perimeter that does not require a dark room and can be used to examine patients in any setting. In this study, imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE examinations were compared with previous Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 30-2 (SITA standard) examinations within the same patient.
Patients and methods: imo examinations (either head-mounted [i-H] or fixed [i-F] type) were performed in patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma who had already experienced HFA five or more times. Measurement time and correlations of mean deviation (MD) and visual field index (VFI) values were compared between groups for HFA, i-H, i-F, and imo total (i-T). Fixation loss (FL), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) detection rates were compared. The percentage of binocular random single-eye tests under possible non-occlusion conditions using imo was determined. Mann–Whitney U test was performed, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated.
Results: The inclusion period was July to December 2016. Among 273 subjects (543 eyes), 147 (292 eyes) were tested with i-H type and 126 (251 eyes) with i-F type. Mean MD values for HFA and i-T were −6.1±7.8 and −6.2±7.1 dB, respectively. Mean measurement times for HFA, i-H, i-F, and i-T were 15.23±2.07, 10.47±2.11, 11.04±2.31, and 10.54±2.19 minutes, respectively (<0.01 for HFA vs i-H/i-F). Total mean measurement time was shorter by 30.8% for i-T vs HFA. Correlation coefficients of MD and VFI were 
2>0.81 for HFA vs i-H and i-F.. FP and FN detection rates were significantly higher with i-T than HFA; there was no significant difference in FL. Binocular random single-eye tests were possible in 85% of cases.
Conclusion: imo reduced measurement time by 30.8%. imo VFI and MD values were highly correlated with HFA. As i-F and i-H types produced similar results, imo can be used in accordance with the patient’s situation.
Keywords: visual field, glaucoma, automatic perimetry, mean deviation, visual field index, reliability index


 

摘要视频链接:Imo 24plus AIZE