Remote MRF visual fields are comparable with HFA testing. Photo: Danica Marrelli, OD.
Remote MRF visual fields are comparable with HFA testing. Photo: Danica Marrelli, OD. Click image to enlarge.

Researchers recently presented their findings regarding two versions of the Melbourne Rapids Field (MRF) test that are compatible both with a tablet and online. “The possibility of home testing and visual field evaluations in many settings introduces a new paradigm shift in the manner in which this diagnostic procedure is conducted,” said Chris Johnson, PhD, of the University of Iowa Department of Ophthalmology.

The study determined that the MRF tablet- and website-based visual field evaluations have high test-retest reliability, produce highly correlated results and generate findings that are very similar to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) procedures for young, healthy participants.

The researchers assessed 40 healthy individuals with normal vision (83% female, average age: 24) by performing two tablet-based MRF tests, two website-based MRF tests and two HFA 24-2 SITA Standard procedures. One of the MRF website tests was performed at the clinic with instruction, and the other was performed at home on a tablet or computer. Calibration procedures to adjust the test for screen size and intensity were performed at the beginning of the website test. The researchers noted that the dynamic range of the MRF is less than the HFA, so sensitivities higher than 30dB were not detectable with the current procedure.

MRF average sensitivity values were within 4.02dB (right eye) and 4.15dB (left eye) of the HFA average sensitivities. When HFA sensitivity values above 30dB were removed, the MRF sensitivities were within 2.2dB (right eye) and 2.46dB (left eye) of the HFA sensitivities. There were very few false positives, false negatives and fixation losses for the MRF and the HFA tests.

The average test-retest difference was 0.04dB for the right eye and 0.05dB for the left eye. The website test-retest variability for the MRF was slightly higher (less than 0.23dB). The study found minimal differences in the visual field indices and individual location sensitivities between the tablet- and website-based MRF test results for all participants.

“Tablet-based and internet website-based MRF testing can provide quantitative perimetric findings, allowing testing to be performed with devices that are portable, easily sanitized and readily available,” Dr. Johnson concluded.

Johnson C, Harris P. Comparison of internet web site and tablet Melbourne Rapid Fields procedures and their test-retest reliability. AAO Meeting 2021.