{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,11,3]],"date-time":"2026-11-03T06:29:41Z","timestamp":1793687381080,"version":"4.5.1"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]],"date-time":"2025-02-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1738800000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100001079","name":"auDA Foundation","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100001079","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Ophthalmol."],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Visual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Patient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>MRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fopht.2025.1485950","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]],"date-time":"2025-02-06T07:00:13Z","timestamp":1738825213000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"5","author":[{"given":"Joyce","family":"Tiang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Algis J.","family":"Vingrys","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sarah","family":"Lin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Selwyn M.","family":"Prea","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Adam Ahmed","family":"Moktar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Allan","family":"Bank","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ashish","family":"Agar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Yu Xiang George","family":"Kong","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bjo.80.5.389","article-title":"Number of people with glaucoma worldwide","volume":"80","author":"Quigley","year":"1996","journal-title":"Br J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1016\/j.mjafi.2015.12.001","article-title":"Glaucoma: The \u2018Black hole\u2019of irreversible blindness","volume":"72","author":"Parihar","year":"2016","journal-title":"Med Journal Armed Forces India"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4317","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm11154317","article-title":"Test reliability and compliance to a twelve-month visual field telemedicine study in glaucoma patients","volume":"11","author":"Prea","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Clin Med"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"23","DOI":"10.1016\/S0039-6257(05)80042-6","article-title":"Mechanisms of optic nerve damage in primary open angle glaucoma","volume":"39","author":"Fechtner","year":"1994","journal-title":"Survey Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2147\/OPTH.S187832","article-title":"Home-based visual field test for glaucoma screening comparison with Humphrey perimeter","author":"Tsapakis","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/archophthalmol.2011.224","article-title":"Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses","volume":"129","author":"Nouri-Mahdavi","year":"2011","journal-title":"Arch Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/ceo.2018.46.issue-4","article-title":"Visual field testing in the era of portable consumer technology","volume":"46","author":"Kong","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin Exp Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.5.6.2","article-title":"A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients","volume":"5","author":"Kong","year":"2016","journal-title":"Trans Vision Sci Technol"},{"key":"B9","first-page":"66","article-title":"Visual field testing for glaucoma\u2013a practical guide","volume":"25","author":"Broadway","year":"2012","journal-title":"Community eye Health"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2017.06.028","article-title":"Can home monitoring allow earlier detection of rapid visual field progression in glaucoma","volume":"124","author":"Anderson","year":"2017","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bjo.2007.135012","article-title":"Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma","volume":"92","author":"Chauhan","year":"2008","journal-title":"Br J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1442-9071.2007.01457.x","article-title":"Glaucoma screening: analysis of conventional and telemedicine-friendly devices","volume":"35","author":"Kumar","year":"2007","journal-title":"Clin Exp Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.5.4.3","article-title":"Validation of a tablet as a tangent perimeter","volume":"5","author":"Vingrys","year":"2016","journal-title":"Trans Vision Sci Technol"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/ceo.2018.46.issue-4","article-title":"Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls","volume":"46","author":"Schulz","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin Exp Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2018.03.009","article-title":"Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the Humphrey field analyzer","volume":"190","author":"Prea","year":"2018","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/OPX.0000000000001889","article-title":"Evaluation of the Melbourne rapid fields test procedure","volume":"99","author":"Harris","year":"2022","journal-title":"Optom Vision Sci"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2019.08.013","article-title":"Clinical evaluation of Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm\u2013faster compared with Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm\u2013standard in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma","volume":"208","author":"Phu","year":"2019","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"B18","first-page":"52","article-title":"Clinical decisions in glaucoma","author":"Hodapp","year":"1993","journal-title":"St Louis: CV Mosby Co"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1167\/jov.21.11.2","article-title":"Scaling the size of perimetric stimuli reduces variability and returns constant thresholds across the visual field","volume":"21","author":"Bedggood","year":"2021","journal-title":"J Vision"},{"key":"B20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1113\/jphysiol.1970.sp009083","article-title":"Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field","volume":"207","author":"Wilson","year":"1970","journal-title":"J Physiol"},{"key":"B21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1145\/2785830.2785836","article-title":"Eyeprotector: Encouraging a healthy viewing distance when using smartphones","author":"Ho","year":"2015"},{"key":"B22","article-title":"Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli","volume":"38","author":"Wall","year":"1997","journal-title":"Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci"},{"key":"B23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.4.2.10","article-title":"The effect of stimulus size on the reliable stimulus range of perimetry","volume":"4","author":"Gardiner","year":"2015","journal-title":"Trans Vision Sci Technol"},{"key":"B24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20130239","DOI":"10.1098\/rsif.2013.0239","article-title":"An assessment of a modern touch-screen tablet computer with reference to core physical characteristics necessary for clinical vision testing","volume":"10","author":"Aslam","year":"2013","journal-title":"J R Soc Interface"},{"key":"B25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2020.10.023","article-title":"Uptake, persistence, and performance of weekly home monitoring of visual field in a large cohort of patients with glaucoma","volume":"223","author":"Prea","year":"2021","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Ophthalmology"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fopht.2025.1485950\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]],"date-time":"2025-02-06T07:00:16Z","timestamp":1738825216000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fopht.2025.1485950\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]]},"references-count":25,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fopht.2025.1485950"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fopht.2025.1485950","relation":{},"ISSN":["2674-0826"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2674-0826","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,6]]},"article-number":"1485950"}}