PMID- 33299296
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20220418
IS  - 1177-5467 (Print)
IS  - 1177-5483 (Electronic)
IS  - 1177-5467 (Linking)
VI  - 14
DP  - 2020
TI  - Retinal Sensitivity Thresholds Obtained Through Easyfield and Humphrey Perimeters 
      in Eyes with Glaucoma: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.
PG  - 4201-4207
LID - 10.2147/OPTH.S280692 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVE: To compare global retinal sensitivity thresholds obtained through the 
      Easyfield perimeter (EF) and Humphrey visual field analyzer (HFA). DESIGN: 
      Observational cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Glaucomatous patients and 
      glaucoma suspects enrolled between October 2018 and April 2019. MATERIALS AND 
      METHODS: All participants underwent EF (SPARK Precision) and HFA perimetry 
      (SITA-Standard). After inclusion, demographic and ocular data were collected, 
      including measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness obtained 
      from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Global indices (mean 
      deviation, MD; pattern standard deviation, PSD) values were compared between 
      perimeters, and their correlation and agreement were evaluated. We used 
      regression analysis to investigate structure-functional correlations between 
      SD-OCT measurements and MD index of each perimeter. RESULTS: We investigated 111 
      eyes from 69 patients. Mean MD (mean difference=1.49dB) and PSD values (mean 
      difference=0.42dB) from the HFA were significantly larger than those from the EF 
      perimeter (p<0.001). There were significant linear correlations between EF-MD and 
      HFA-MD (r=0.56), and EF-PSD and HFA-PSD (r=0.38; p<0.001). We found significant 
      non-linear associations between average RNFL thickness and MD values derived from 
      both EF (R(2)=0.41) and HFA (R(2)=0.17) perimeters (p</=0.012). A difference <2dB 
      between EF-MD and HFA-MD was found in 53% of the eyes, while 71% of them had a 
      difference <1dB between EF-PSD and HFA-PSD. CONCLUSION: While we found a moderate 
      correlation and a small mean sensitivity difference between test results, EF's 
      correlation with structural measurements was at least comparable to that of the 
      HFA. Our findings suggest that although these tests should not be used 
      interchangeably, EF SPARK Precision could be used as an alternative for 
      functional assessment in eyes with mild glaucoma.
CI  - (c) 2020 Nazareth et al.
FAU - Nazareth, Thaissa
AU  - Nazareth T
AD  - Glaucoma Service, Instituto de Olhos Ciencias Medicas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
FAU - Rocha, Janaina
AU  - Rocha J
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-6560-3297
AD  - Glaucoma Service, Instituto de Olhos Ciencias Medicas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
FAU - Scoralick, Ana Luiza B
AU  - Scoralick ALB
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0003-0195-8408
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
FAU - Dias, Diego T
AU  - Dias DT
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-0318-7267
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
FAU - Gracitelli, Carolina P B
AU  - Gracitelli CPB
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
FAU - Kanadani, Fabio N
AU  - Kanadani FN
AD  - Glaucoma Service, Instituto de Olhos Ciencias Medicas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
FAU - Prata, Tiago S
AU  - Prata TS
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0003-1830-3766
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
AD  - Ophthalmology Department, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20201202
PL  - New Zealand
TA  - Clin Ophthalmol
JT  - Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
JID - 101321512
PMC - PMC7719433
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Easyfield
OT  - Humphrey
OT  - glaucoma
OT  - visual field
COIS- The authors have not received any drugs or equipment from an entity that might 
      benefit or be at an advantage financially or reputationally from the published 
      findings. The authors have not held a position on an industry board or private 
      company that might benefit or be at an advantage financially or reputationally 
      from the published finding. The authors do not have any personal, political, 
      religious, ideological, academic and intellectual competing interests which are 
      perceived to be relevant to the published content. There are non-financial 
      competing interests. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest for 
      this work.
EDAT- 2020/12/11 06:00
MHDA- 2020/12/11 06:01
PMCR- 2020/12/02
CRDT- 2020/12/10 05:56
PHST- 2020/09/14 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2020/11/10 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2020/12/10 05:56 [entrez]
PHST- 2020/12/11 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2020/12/11 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2020/12/02 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 280692 [pii]
AID - 10.2147/OPTH.S280692 [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec 2;14:4201-4207. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S280692. eCollection 
      2020.