Skip to main content

  • Comparison of Peristat Online Perimetry With Clinic-Based Humphrey Perimetry

    By Marianne Doran and edited by Deepak P. Edward, MD
    Add to My Bookmarks

    Journal Highlights

    Translational Vision Science & Technology
    2016;5(4):4

    Download PDF


    Because open-angle glaucoma lacks symptoms in its early stages, only 34% and 8% of cases are diagnosed in the developed and developing world, respectively. Issues of access and cost may create barriers for some patients to in-office perimetry. A possible solution is use of in-home testing; thus, Lowry et al. assessed the correlation between Peristat, a free online perimetry test, and clinic-based Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing.

    Peristat online perimetry (POP) is a novel web-based virtual suprathresh­old system that allows self-testing on any 17-inch or larger computer moni­tor. It sequentially tests a visual field of 24 degrees from fixation horizontally and 20 degrees vertically using 4 levels of standardized threshold stimuli. This allows patients to be tested for char­acteristic glaucomatous irregularities in fewer than 5 minutes per eye. It is available at www.keepyoursight.org for free unlimited home access.

    In this study, the researchers com­pared POP with HVF to assess the correlations between the 2 methods in 1 eye each of 93 participants (63 with glaucoma; 30 controls). Both types of perimetry were performed by all par­ticipants in random order from August 2013 to February 2014. The researchers compared the points missed between the 2 methods, and generated receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for detection of mild to moderate and severe glaucoma. They found that the areas under the ROC curve with POP were generally comparable to those generated with HVF testing.

    The authors concluded that POP exhibits a reasonable ROC curve with­out use of specialized equipment and showed significant correlation with the conventional 24-degree HVF testing. They noted that it could be a useful complement to traditional clinic-based testing in reducing cost and travel bur­dens. They cautioned, however, that if used only once, as the sole screening method, POP would miss at least 14% of moderate or worse glaucoma and up to 46% of early glaucoma.

    The original article can be found here.