title: Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry.
abstract: As part of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a substudy was performed to determine the efficacy of the newly released Fastpac program for the Humphrey Field Analyser. A comparison was performed of the Fastpac and conventional full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in 39 eyes of 36 participants. Also a comparison study was performed of the standard and non-standard 80-point screening tests to the standard 24-2 full threshold test in 23 eyes of 23 participants. In the full threshold comparison there was 100% agreement between the two with Fastpac being 32% to 39% faster than standard. In the 80-point screening test comparison, non-standard was no faster than standard. Sensitivities were 17/17 (1.0) for non-standard and 15/18 (0.83) for standard, as compared with the standard 24-2 full threshold test. Fastpac software offers accurate screening and threshold testing in less time than the standard algorithm.
authors.affiliation: University of Melbourne Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
authors.forename: I M
authors.initials: IM
authors.lastname: Young
authors.forename: J L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Rait
authors.forename: C S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Guest
authors.forename: C A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Carson
authors.forename: H R
authors.initials: HR
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012684:Sensory Thresholds; D012984:Software; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014787:Vision Tests; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields