Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 3.0

The Networked Analysis of Static Visual Field Evaluation: A Comparison between Medisoft and Humphrey Software Systems

Hetan Ajwani, Carmel P. Noonan, Fiona J. Rowe

Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal · pp. 96–113 · Published 21 Dec 2013

10.9734/OR/2014/7279

Abstract

Aim: This study compares and contrasts the integrity of original data once imported to Medisoft from the Humphrey perimeter. We aim to analyse the correlation between reliability indices, mean deviation and pattern standard deviation. Methods: Visual field results from Humphrey automated perimetry using the 24-2 SITA-FAST strategy were imported to Medisoft. A direct comparison was made from original hard copy printouts from the Humphrey perimeter to hard copy printouts of the Medisoft version of the results. All data was compared using Bland-Altman plots and unpaired t tests. Results: A total of 50 patients (23 male, 27 female) aged 51 to 91 (mean ± SD: 73.8 ± 11.36) had their visual fields assessed using the 24-2 programme on a Humphrey perimeter (HFA; model 740). Conclusion: The findings of our study suggest that, overall, there is no clinically significant difference between the Humphrey and Medisoft software systems. However, the Humphrey results were not always reproduced identically using Medisoft software.

Visual field assessment 24-2 Humphrey automated perimetry Medisoft

References (22)

  1. 1 STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [DOI]
  2. 2 Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study [DOI]
  3. 3 The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care [DOI]
  4. 4 Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for Classifying Functional Damage in Glaucoma [DOI]
  5. 5 The Next Transformation in the Delivery of Health Care [DOI]
  6. 6 Sensitivity and specificity of the swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects1 1None of the authors has a commercial interest in Humphrey Systems. [DOI]
  7. 7 Adoption and Perceptions of Electronic Health Record Systems by Ophthalmologists: An American Academy of Ophthalmology Survey [DOI]
  8. 8 Special Requirements for Electronic Health Record Systems in Ophthalmology [DOI]
  9. 9 Comparison between Semiautomated Kinetic Perimetry and Conventional Goldmann Manual Kinetic Perimetry in Advanced Visual Field Loss [DOI]
  10. 10 Automated Combined Kinetic and Static Perimetry [DOI]
  11. 11 Electronic patient records and the impact of the Internet [DOI]
  12. 12 Sensitivity and specificity of frequency‐doubling technology, tendency‐oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals [DOI]
  13. 13 Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients [DOI]
  14. 14 Spatial classification of glaucomatous visual field loss. [DOI]
  15. 15 Formulas for conversion between Octopus and Humphrey threshold values and indices [DOI]
  16. 16 CLASSIFYING VISUAL FIELD DATA [DOI]
  17. 17 Quantification of stato-kinetic dissociation by semi-automated perimetry [DOI]
  18. 18 Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway [DOI]
  19. 19 The effects of weighting the ?mean defect? visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field [DOI]
  20. 20 Considerations for Choosing an Electronic Medical Record for an Ophthalmology Practice [DOI]
  21. 21 Comparison of Matrix Perimetry With Octopus Perimetry for Assessing Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects [DOI]
  22. 22 Categorizing the Stage of Glaucoma From Prediagnosis to End-Stage Disease [DOI]

Cited by 0

No indexed citations yet.

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

80

Page views

0

PDF downloads

15

Outbound clicks

0

Citations

Views over time

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.