DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics16213528 ISSN: 2075-4418

Agreement, Reliability, and Feasibility of Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimetry Compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma

Murshidah Hassan Basri, Teck Chee Cheng, Rona Asnida Nasaruddin, Jemaima Che Hamzah

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the agreement, test–retest reliability, test duration, and patient acceptability of Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) tablet perimetry compared with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-Standard perimetry in glaucoma patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 64 eyes of 64 patients with primary or secondary glaucoma. Participants underwent both HFA and MRF perimetry in a non-randomized sequence. Agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. Test–retest reliability of MRF was evaluated in 47 participants after 4 weeks. Acceptability was assessed via questionnaires. Results: MRF demonstrated comparable reliability indices to HFA (p > 0.05), although these findings do not establish equivalent clinical reliability due to differences in platform-specific definitions. MRF demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability for MD (ICC 0.993), PD (ICC 0.992), and VC (ICC 0.992; all p < 0.001). Compared with HFA, MRF produced significantly less negative MD (−6.27 ± 5.55 vs. −8.32 ± 5.47 dB, p < 0.001) and higher PSD/PD (7.48 ± 3.26 vs. 6.33 ± 4.11 dB, p < 0.001), while VFI/VC did not differ significantly (p = 0.808). Overall agreement was good-to-excellent MD (ICC 0.949), PSD/PD (ICC 0.880), and VFI/VC (ICC 0.930). However, exploratory severity-stratified Bland–Altman analysis suggested greater variability in moderate and severe glaucoma. MRF was significantly faster than HFA (4.22 ± 0.81 vs. 5.46 ± 1.33 min, p < 0.001). All patients reported it was easy and comfortable. Conclusions: MRF provides excellent test–retest reliability, shorter testing duration, and high patient acceptability. While overall agreement is high, systematic differences and greater advanced-stage variability prevent direct interchangeability with HFA. Instead, MRF serves as a practical, complementary platform for accessible, frequent testing.

More from our Archive