Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1540
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 87-91

Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population

1 Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India; Research Fellow, Department of Ocular Epidemiology, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Parul Ichhpujani
Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1847_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the perimetric outcomes using a free application program of the iPad, 'Visual Fields Easy' (VFE), and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HVFA), in normal as well as eyes with glaucomatous damage of varying severity. Methods: In this prospective, cross-sectional, observational pilot investigation, visual field testing was carried out in 210 eyes of 210 patients (60 Normal, 150 Glaucoma), using suprathreshold VFE application (Version 8) on the iPad and Standard White-on-White using HVFA. Severity of glaucoma was categorized using Hodapp-Anderson-Parrish criteria for visual field defects. The results of the VFE program were compared to the 24-2 SITA FAST HVFA. Results: Data of 210 patients, 100 (47.6%) females, and 110 (52.4%) males, age ranging from 42 to 78 years, Mean 56.64 ± 10.67 years, was analyzed. The Spearman correlation coefficient showed a significant inverse relationship between missed points on the VFE app with MD (S = –0.783) and a parabolic relationship with PSD (S = 0.646) values obtained with the HVFA. As regards missed points, for mild glaucoma, missed points were 37.5, sensitivity was 77.8% and specificity was 52.6%; for moderate glaucoma, missed points were 33.5, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 48% while for severe glaucoma, missed points were 23, sensitivity was 97% and specificity was 70%. AROC for eyes with mild glaucoma versus normal was 0.419 (95% CI: 0.343-0.495), moderate glaucoma versus normal was 0.705 (95% CI: 0.630-0.780) and severe glaucoma versus normal was 0.857 (95% CI: 0.806-0.908). Conclusion: Suprathreshold perimetry using VFE is not suitable as a rapid screening tool for mass screening of glaucoma. VFE cannot be used as a substitute for HVFA in clinic because of its inability to detect early or moderate glaucoma.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal