PURPOSE To evaluate relative diagnostic precision and test-retest variability of 2 devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin, CA), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). DESIGN Multicenter, cross-sectional, case-control study. PARTICIPANTS We sequentially enrolled 499 patients with glaucoma and 444 normal subjects to analyze relative precision. A separate group of 44 patients with glaucoma and 54 normal subjects was analyzed to assess test-retest variability. METHODS One eye of recruited subjects was tested with the index tests: HFA (Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm [SITA] standard strategy) and CMP (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing [ZEST] strategy), 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field (VF). For both devices, linear regression was used to calculate the sensitivity decrease with age in the normal group to compute pointwise total deviation (TD) values and mean deviation (MD). We derived 5% and 1% pointwise normative limits. The MD and the total number of TD values below 5% (TD 5%) or 1% (TD 1%) limits per field were used as classifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We used partial receiver operating characteristic (pROC) curves and partial area under the curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices. Pointwise mean absolute deviation and Bland-Altman plots for the mean sensitivity (MS) were computed to assess test-retest variability. RESULTS Retinal sensitivity was generally lower with CMP, with an average mean difference of 1.85±0.06 decibels (dB) (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in healthy subjects and 1.46±0.05 dB (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in patients with glaucoma. Both devices showed similar discriminative power. The MD metric had marginally better discrimination with CMP (pAUC difference ± standard error, 0.019±0.009, P = 0.035). The 95% limits of agreement for the MS were reduced by 13% in CMP compared with HFA in participants with glaucoma and by 49% in normal participants. Mean absolute deviation was similar, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS Relative diagnostic precision of the 2 devices is equivalent. Test-retest variability of MS for CMP was better than for HFA.

中文翻译：

---

指南针眼底周长和汉弗莱现场分析仪之间的比较。

目的评估在检查青光眼性视神经病变（GON）中的指南针（CMP，CenterVue，意大利帕多瓦，意大利）眼底周界和汉弗莱场分析仪（HFA，Zeiss，都柏林，CA）这两种设备的相对诊断精度和重测变异性）。设计多中心，横断面，病例对照研究。参与者我们依次招募了499例青光眼患者和444例正常受试者，以分析其相对准确性。分析了另一组44名青光眼患者和54名正常受试者，以评估重测变异性。方法用指标测试：HFA（瑞典交互式阈值算法[SITA]标准策略）和CMP（按顺序测试Zippy估计[ZEST]策略），以24-2网格测试指标。GON的参考测试是眼底照片或OCT的专业评估，与视野（VF）无关。对于这两种设备，均使用线性回归来计算正常组中灵敏度随着年龄的增长而下降，以计算逐点总偏差（TD）值和平均偏差（MD）。我们得出了5％和1％的逐点标准限制。每个字段的MD和TD值总数低于5％（TD 5％）或1％（TD 1％）限制的总数用作分类器。主要观察指标我们使用了部分接收器工作特性（pROC）曲线和曲线下的部分面积（pAUC）来比较设备的诊断精度。计算平均灵敏度的逐点平均绝对偏差和Bland-Altman图以评估重测变异性。结果CMP的视网膜敏感性通常较低，青光眼患者的平均平均差异为1.85±0.06分贝（dB）（均值±标准误差，P <0.001），青光眼患者的平均均值差异为1.46±0.05 dB（均值±标准误差，P <0.001）。两种设备都具有相似的判别能力。MD指标与CMP的判别性略好（pAUC差异±标准误差，0.019±0.009，P = 0.035）。与青光眼参与者相比，与HFA相比，在CMP中MS的95％协议限制降低了13％，在正常参与者中降低了49％。平均绝对偏差相似，无显着差异。结论这两种设备的相对诊断精度是等效的。CMP的MS重测变异性优于HFA。青光眼患者05 dB（平均值±标准误差，P <0.001）。两种设备都具有相似的判别能力。MD指标与CMP的判别性略好（pAUC差异±标准误差，0.019±0.009，P = 0.035）。与青光眼参与者相比，与HFA相比，在CMP中MS的95％协议限制降低了13％，在正常参与者中降低了49％。平均绝对偏差相似，无显着差异。结论这两种设备的相对诊断精度是等效的。CMP的MS重测变异性优于HFA。青光眼患者05 dB（平均值±标准误差，P <0.001）。两种设备都具有相似的判别能力。MD指标与CMP的判别性略好（pAUC差异±标准误差，0.019±0.009，P = 0.035）。与青光眼参与者相比，与HFA相比，在CMP中MS的95％协议限制降低了13％，在正常参与者中降低了49％。平均绝对偏差相似，无显着差异。结论这两种设备的相对诊断精度是等效的。CMP的MS重测变异性优于HFA。与青光眼参与者相比，与HFA相比，在CMP中MS的95％协议限制降低了13％，在正常参与者中降低了49％。平均绝对偏差相似，无显着差异。结论这两种设备的相对诊断精度是等效的。CMP的MS重测变异性优于HFA。与青光眼参与者相比，与HFA相比，在CMP中MS的95％协议限制降低了13％，在正常参与者中降低了49％。平均绝对偏差相似，无显着差异。结论这两种设备的相对诊断精度是等效的。CMP的MS重测变异性优于HFA。