December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Evaluation of VisionRx Computer Based Perimetry vs. Humphrey Visual Field
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B Madsen
    Ophthalmology University of Texas at San Antonio San Antonio TX
  • WE Sponsel
    Ophthalmology University of Texas at San Antonio San Antonio TX
  • S McKinnon
    Ophthalmology University of Texas at San Antonio San Antonio TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   B. Madsen, None; W.E. Sponsel, None; S. McKinnon, VisionRx F, I, P. Grant Identification: Prevent Blindness, New York, NY
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 2174. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B Madsen, WE Sponsel, S McKinnon; Evaluation of VisionRx Computer Based Perimetry vs. Humphrey Visual Field . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):2174.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: To investigate the potential use of VisionRx computer based perimetry technology to measure visual field defects in patients with and without glaucomatous disease. Methods:Patients with and without scotomata were asked to complete both 24-2 SITA full-threshold Humphrey 24-2 and VisionRx computer based perimetry. Results:50 eyes of 50 different patients were initially analyzed. 24 eyes of 24 patients that satisfied standard reliability criteria on both perimetry tests were compared (age range 14-72; 12 normals, 5 glaucoma suspects, 7 glaucomas). The average time required to complete the SITA standard threshold HVF was 6 min vs. 14 min for VisionRx computerized perimetry (P<0.001). Older patients unfamiliar with computers had more difficulty than younger patients in performing VisionRx testing, mainly as a consequence of their unfamiliarity with the use of a mouse, the stimulus response device. 1246 loci (24 subjects, 54 loci minus the blind spot) on both the VisionRx and HVF were analyzed. A fairly uniform mean difference was observed, with thresholds 7.07 +/- 0.16 dB lower on VisionRx than HVF at comitant loci across the visual field. After applying a -7 dB correction factor for each locus on the VisionRx, masked comparison of both sets of visual fields was performed using Hodapp/Parish/Anderson criteria, demonstrating the following indices for VisionRx vs HVF 24-2 gold standard: [Subgroup (True +/True -/False +/False -:in %)]: Normals (0/92/8/0); Suspects (20/60/20/0); Glaucoma (71/14/14//0). Overall concordance was 88%, with 13% false positives and 0 false negatives. Sensitivity was 100% and specificity 83%. Regional correspondence of scotoma location and size existed between perimeters. Conclusion: This comparison suggests that VisionRx perimetry may be a good screening tool for certain populations. According to the Baltimore Eye Study, at age 55, 5% of the African American population is likely to have glaucoma. According the specificity above, VisionRx perimetry would give approximately a 3:1 ratio of false positives to true positives with 100% sensitivity among this group, a good screening ratio. In the Caucasion population at age 55 there is < 2% prevalence of glaucoma. VisionRx would produce an 8:1 false positive to true positive ratio among this group, somewhat high for a screening exam, even one with 100% sensitivity. The current version of VisionRx perimetry is thus a potentially useful screening tool for high prevalence populations adept at using computers. It can also spatially quantify pathology among patients with existing disease, allowing clinic-linked home monitoring of visual field change via the internet.

Keywords: 484 nerve fiber layer • 498 optic disc • 511 perimetry 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.