[
    {
        "id": "osp-12924",
        "type": "article-journal",
        "title": "Comparison between Humphrey Field Analyzer and Micro Perimeter 1 in normal and glaucoma subjects",
        "author": [
            {
                "family": "Ratra",
                "given": "Vineet"
            },
            {
                "family": "Ratra",
                "given": "Dhanashree"
            },
            {
                "family": "Gupta",
                "given": "Muneeswar"
            },
            {
                "family": "Vaitheeswaran",
                "given": "K"
            }
        ],
        "URL": "https://omanscience.com/ar/articles/comparison-between-humphrey-field-analyzer-and-micro-perimeter-1-in-normal-and-glaucoma-subjects",
        "language": "en",
        "issued": {
            "date-parts": [
                [
                    2012
                ]
            ]
        },
        "container-title": "Oman Journal of Ophthalmology",
        "volume": "5",
        "issue": "2",
        "page": "97-102",
        "DOI": "10.4103/0974-620x.99372",
        "publisher": "Medknow Publications",
        "ISSN": "0974-620X",
        "abstract": "Purpose: To determine the correlation between fundus perimetry with Micro Perimeter 1 (MP1) and conventional automated static threshold perimetry using the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in healthy individuals and in subjects with glaucoma.\n\nMaterials and methods: In this study, we enrolled 45 eyes with glaucoma and 21 eyes of age-matched, healthy individuals. All subjects underwent complete ophthalmic examination. Differential light sensitivity was measured at 21 corresponding points in a rectangular test grid in both MP1 and HFA. Similar examination settings were used with Goldmann III stimulus, stimulus presentation time of 200 ms, and white background illumination (1.27 cd/m(2)). Statistical analysis was done with the SPSS 14 using linear regression and independent t-test.\n\nResults: The mean light thresholds of 21 matching points in control group with MP1 and HFA were 14.97 ± 2.64 dB and 30.90 ± 2.08 dB, respectively. In subjects with glaucoma, the mean values were MP1: 11.73 ± 4.36 dB and HFA: 27.96 ± 5.41 dB. Mean difference of light thresholds among the two instruments was 15.86 ± 3.25 dB in normal subjects (P < 0.001) and 16.22 ± 2.77 dB in glaucoma subjects (P < 0.001). Pearson correlation analysis of the HFA and MP1 results for each test point location in both cases and control subjects showed significant positive correlation (controls, r = 0.439, P = 0.047; glaucoma subjects, r = 0.812, P < 0.001). There was no difference between nasal and temporal points but a slight vertical asymmetry was observed with MP1.\n\nConclusion: There are significant and reproducible differences in the differential light threshold in MP1 and HFA in both normal and glaucoma subjects. We found a correction factor of 17.271 for comparison of MP1 with HFA. MP1 appeared to be more sensitive in predicting loss in glaucoma."
    }
]