Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Optom Vis Sci. 2015 May;92(5):527-36. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000583.

Comparison of Matrix with Humphrey Field Analyzer II with SITA.

Author information

1
*MD †PhD ‡MD, MPH §OD, FAAO Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Universitaire d'Ophtalmologie, Université Laval, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec, le Québec, Canada (M-JF); CEVQ, SP-POS, Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec, Québec, le Québec, Canada (M-JF, AG); Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida (M-JF, DRA, JMc); Office of Education and Continuing Professional Development, Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, le Québec, Canada (AG); and Department of Ophthalmology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (DLB).

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To study the performance of the Matrix perimeter compared with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (HFA) with the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm over the range of contrast sensitivities each machine could estimate.

METHODS:

Fifty stable glaucoma subjects at various stages of disease and three normal subjects had visual fields testing done on five different days within 8 weeks with both perimeters. Intraclass correlation coefficient of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and the SD of repeat measurements were evaluated. The repeatability of the sensitivity estimates at individual locations and global indices was quantified, as well as their dependence on disease severity. The relationship between sensitivity determinations with the two instruments was explored (principal curve analysis).

RESULTS:

Mean deviation on the HFA ranged from -31 to +2.5 dB. The mean deviation and pattern standard deviation had intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.90 for both instruments. Over most of the useful range (above 20 dB on the HFA), a difference of 1 dB for the Matrix corresponded to a difference of 2 dB for the HFA. The SD of repeat measurements increased with disease severity with HFA, but not with Matrix, except that values of 12 or 34 dB were highly variable on repeat. Variability was reduced for both HFA and Matrix when duplicate sensitivity values were used. A single Matrix test provided only 15 possible sensitivity values, unevenly spaced, but the average of duplicate measurements provided more numerous sensitivity values. A learning effect was detected for Matrix.

CONCLUSIONS:

The decibel values reported by the two machines are not equivalent. Variability of sensitivity determinations is affected more by the sensitivity level with HFA than with Matrix. Duplicate measurements for baseline and follow-up evaluation could be important, especially for Matrix. Further information on learning effects is needed, as is commercially available progression software for Matrix.

PMID:
25875683
DOI:
10.1097/OPX.0000000000000583
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center