advertisement
Abstract #78475 Published in IGR 20-1
A Comparison between the Compass Fundus Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer
Montesano G; Bryan SR; Crabb DP; Fogagnolo P; Oddone F; McKendrick AM; Turpin A; Lanzetta P; Perdicchi A; Johnson CA; Garway-Heath DF; Brusini P; Rossetti LMOphthalmology 2019; 126: 242-251
PURPOSE: To evaluate relative diagnostic precision and test-retest variability of 2 devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin, CA), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional, case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: We sequentially enrolled 499 patients with glaucoma and 444 normal subjects to analyze relative precision. A separate group of 44 patients with glaucoma and 54 normal subjects was analyzed to assess test-retest variability. METHODS: One eye of recruited subjects was tested with the index tests: HFA (Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm [SITA] standard strategy) and CMP (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing [ZEST] strategy), 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field (VF). For both devices, linear regression was used to calculate the sensitivity decrease with age in the normal group to compute pointwise total deviation (TD) values and mean deviation (MD). We derived 5% and 1% pointwise normative limits. The MD and the total number of TD values below 5% (TD 5%) or 1% (TD 1%) limits per field were used as classifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used partial receiver operating characteristic (pROC) curves and partial area under the curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices. Pointwise mean absolute deviation and Bland-Altman plots for the mean sensitivity (MS) were computed to assess test-retest variability. RESULTS: Retinal sensitivity was generally lower with CMP, with an average mean difference of 1.85±0.06 decibels (dB) (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in healthy subjects and 1.46±0.05 dB (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in patients with glaucoma. Both devices showed similar discriminative power. The MD metric had marginally better discrimination with CMP (pAUC difference ± standard error, 0.019±0.009, P = 0.035). The 95% limits of agreement for the MS were reduced by 13% in CMP compared with HFA in participants with glaucoma and by 49% in normal participants. Mean absolute deviation was similar, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Relative diagnostic precision of the 2 devices is equivalent. Test-retest variability of MS for CMP was better than for HFA.
University of Milan - ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy; City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
