Comparison of the Melbourne rapid fields-web device-independent online perimeter and the octopus 600 perimeter in glaucoma patients

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the agreement, repeatability, and testing efficiency of Melbourne Rapid Fields-Web (MRF-Web), a browser-based, device-independent perimeter, compared with the Octopus 600 perimeter in glaucoma patients.MethodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional, single-center observational study included 113 patients undergoing routine visual field assessment for glaucoma or glaucoma suspicion at Marengo Asia Hospitals, Gurgaon, India. MRF-Web testing was performed on a calibrated 14-inch laptop with Hindi voice guidance. Agreement between MRF-Web and Octopus 600 for Mean Deviation (MD) and pattern-based global indices was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman analysis. Test-retest repeatability was evaluated in 51 patients who underwent repeat MRF-Web testing.ResultsMRF-Web showed strong group-level concordance with Octopus 600 for MD, with an ICC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81–0.92), Bland–Altman bias of -0.78 dB, and 95% limits of agreement from -4.72 to 3.17 dB. Concordance for the pattern-based indices was moderate, with an ICC of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58–0.81), bias of -0.59 dB, and 95% limits of agreement from -4.41 to 3.24 dB. MRF-Web demonstrated good test-retest concordance, with an ICC of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69–0.94). Mean per-eye test duration was significantly shorter with MRF-Web than with Octopus 600 (232.9 ± 49.8 versus 342.4 ± 94.4 seconds).ConclusionsMRF-Web demonstrated strong group-level concordance with Octopus 600 MD measurements and shorter per-eye testing times in this predominantly mild-disease cohort. The limits of agreement indicate that measurements from the two platforms should not be regarded as directly interchangeable, and further study is required in moderate and advanced glaucoma.