title: Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.
  
  
  RESULTS
  MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA. ja2660@columbia.edu
authors.forename: Jennifer H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Acton
authors.forename: Nicholas S
authors.initials: NS
authors.lastname: Bartlett
authors.forename: Vivienne C
authors.initials: VC
authors.lastname: Greenstein
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014794:Visual Fields; D055815:Young Adult