Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

AI Generated Summary*

A head-mounted perimeter needing no dark room was compared retrospectively with the Humphrey Field Analyzer in 273 patients (543 eyes) who had glaucoma or suspected glaucoma and five or more stable prior HFA 30-2 tests. Its 24plus (1-2) AIZE program ran head-mounted (147 patients) or fixed (126). Mean deviation averaged -6.1 dB with HFA and -6.2 dB with imo; correlation coefficients for mean deviation and visual field index ranged from 0.78 to 0.86, with Bland-Altman plots showing no notable bias. Testing took 10:54 versus 15:23 minutes, a 30.8% reduction; the two mountings performed similarly. False positive and false negative rates were significantly higher with imo, while fixation loss did not differ. Unoccluded testing succeeded in 85% of these perimetry-experienced cases.

*This summary was generated by AI and is published unedited. Oku does not alter these summaries. It may contain errors or omissions and is provided for general informational purposes only. Oku does not guarantee its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. For authoritative information, please refer to the original, peer-reviewed article.