Melbourne Rapid Fields provide comparable diagnostic information to Humphrey Field Analyzer for glaucoma perimetryMelbourne Rapid Fields Provide Comparable Data to Humphrey Field Analyzer

Journal of glaucoma Published July 5, 2026 Study authors: Inzunza Andres, Moreno-Diaz Edgar Alejandro, Goss Deborah, Friedman David PubMed ↗ DOI ↗ Editorial oversight: Dr. Lars van Dijk, PhD · Surgical, Procedural & Diagnostic

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway

Note that MRF provides diagnostic information comparable to HFA despite shorter durations and higher reliability indices.

This meta-analysis of 9 studies involving 777 eyes evaluates the perimetric performance of Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) compared to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) for glaucoma diagnosis. The analysis focuses on several key metrics including Mean Deviation (MD), Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), and reliability indices.

Key findings indicate that MRF had shorter test durations than HFA by -1.33 min. Regarding global agreement, MRF showed high agreement with HFA for MD (ICC=0.94; R2=0.85) and PSD (ICC=0.85). While both devices demonstrated high test-retest reliability (MRF ICC=0.96; HFA ICC=0.95), MRF showed higher values for fixation losses, false positives, and false negatives compared to HFA. Additionally, MRF had less-negative MD (+2.08 dB) and higher PSD (+0.77 dB) than HFA. AUC for MD was comparable (0.84 vs. 0.85), but AUC for PSD was lower for MRF (0.81 vs. 0.93).

Limitations noted include greater pointwise variability at certain thresholds and worse reliability measures for MRF. Despite these differences in test duration and reliability indices, the authors conclude that MRF provides diagnostic information comparable to HFA. Practitioners should note these technical nuances when selecting perimetry devices.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses a gap regarding specific device comparisons in glaucoma management. While prior coverage noted a review of glaucoma management without reported intervention details or outcomes, this study provides specific comparative data between MRF and HFA. It confirms that both tools provide comparable diagnostic information despite differences in test duration (-1.33 min) and reliability indices.

Researchers compared two different types of vision tests used to monitor glaucoma: the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). This meta-analysis looked at 777 eyes across nine different studies to see how these two tools performed against each other.

The results showed that the MRF test is faster, with a shorter duration than the HFA. While both tests showed high agreement in measuring Mean Deviation (MD), the MRF had some differences in reliability scores and higher rates of fixation losses and false positives. However, the study found that the MRF still provides diagnostic information comparable to the standard HFA.

Because this is a meta-analysis comparing equipment performance rather than a clinical trial on patients, it does not prove one test is better for treatment. The MRF may have some variability at certain thresholds and lower scores in specific reliability metrics. Patients should talk to their eye doctor to determine which testing method is best for their specific needs.

What this means for you:

The MRF test provides similar glaucoma data to the HFA but offers a faster testing time for patients.

Common questions

Is the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) test as accurate as the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA)?

The study found that MRF provides diagnostic information comparable to HFA. While there were differences in some reliability indices and certain metrics like Pattern Standard Deviation, both tests showed high agreement for Mean Deviation. You should discuss these specific results with your doctor to see how they apply to your care.

How long does the MRF test take compared to the HFA?

The study found that the MRF had shorter test durations than the HFA. Specifically, the data showed a difference of 1.33 minutes. This makes it a faster option for patients undergoing vision testing for glaucoma.

Are there any reliability issues with the MRF test?

The study noted that MRF had higher values for fixation losses, false positives, and false negatives compared to HFA. It also showed more pointwise variability at certain thresholds. However, both tests still demonstrated high test-retest reliability.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedJul 2026

PMID42340749

View Original Abstract ↓

PRCIS: Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) had shorter test durations than HFA, high agreement with HFA global indices, modest bias in MD and PSD measurements, and comparable concordance and repeatability. MRF had poorer reliability indices, while maintaining good diagnostic performance. PURPOSE: The Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) is the most widely used perimeter in glaucoma, but its cost and low portability limit its use in resource-constrained settings. Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) is a low-cost, tablet-based perimeter system that enables at-home and low-resource testing. Despite growing evidence that the MRF can obtain reliable estimates of the visual field, no study has synthesized its perimetric performance through meta-analysis and compared it with HFA. METHODS: Following PROSPERO registration, we conducted a systematic review to compare MRF with HFA in patients with glaucoma. Searches were performed using controlled vocabulary related to perimetry assessment with these devices. Meta-analyses and narrative synthesis were conducted to summarize their performance. RESULTS: Of 290 studies screened, 9 were included, totaling 777 eyes. Pooled data comparing MRF to HFA, MRF had faster testing (-1.33 min), less-negative MD (+2.08 dB), and higher PSD (+0.77 dB). Global agreement with HFA was high (MD ICC=0.94; MD R2=0.85; PSD ICC=0.85). Test-retest reliability was similar between devices (MRF ICC=0.96; HFA ICC=0.95). AUCs were comparable for MD (0.84 vs. 0.85) but lower for PSD (0.81 vs. 0.93). MRF had higher fixation losses, false positives, and false negatives. CONCLUSION: Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) had shorter test durations, high global agreement with HFA, excellent repeatability, and a bias toward less-negative global results. MRF showed greater pointwise variability at certain thresholds and worse reliability measures. Despite these differences, MRF provided diagnostic information comparable to that of HFA.

Melbourne Rapid Fields provide comparable diagnostic information to Humphrey Field Analyzer for glaucoma perimetryMelbourne Rapid Fields Provide Comparable Data to Humphrey Field Analyzer

How this fits prior evidence

Common questions

Study Details

Systematic review of extensive macular atrophy with pseudodrusen reports visual acuity decline and atrophy progression

Eye disease linked to vision loss and thicker eye layers in study

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Melbourne Rapid Fields provide comparable diagnostic information to Humphrey Field Analyzer for glaucoma perimetryMelbourne Rapid Fields Provide Comparable Data to Humphrey Field Analyzer

How this fits prior evidence

Common questions

More on Glaucoma

Study Details

Systematic review of extensive macular atrophy with pseudodrusen reports visual acuity decline and atrophy progression

Eye disease linked to vision loss and thicker eye layers in study

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Related in Ophthalmology

From Other Specialties