Montesano, G;
Bryan, SR;
Crabb, DP;
Fogagnolo, P;
Oddone, F;
McKendrick, AM;
Turpin, A;
... Rossetti, LM; + view all
(2019)
A comparison between the Compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Ophthalmology
, 126
(2)
pp. 242-251.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.010.
Preview |
Text
1-s2.0-S0161642018309357-main.pdf - Accepted Version Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate relative diagnostic precision and test retest variability of two devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). DESIGN: Multicentre cross-sectional case-control study. SUBJECTS: We sequentially enrolled 499 glaucoma patients and 444 normal subjects to analyse relative precision. A separate group of 44 glaucoma patients and 54 normal subjects was analysed to assess test - retest variability. METHODS: One eye of the recruited subjects was tested with the index tests: HFA (SITA Standard strategy) and CMP (ZEST strategy) with a 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field. 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. 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 (ROC) curves and partial Area Under the Curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices. Pointwise Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) 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 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 to HFA in glaucoma subjects, and by 49% in normal subjects. MAD was very similar, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Relative diagnostic precision of the two devices is equivalent. Test-retest variability of mean sensitivity for CMP was better than for HFA.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | A comparison between the Compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer |
| Location: | United States |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.010 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.08.010 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Institute of Ophthalmology |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10055971 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
