Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry

I. M. Young, J. L. Rait, C. S. Guest, C. A. Carson, H. R. Taylor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


As part of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a substudy was performed to determine the efficacy of the newly released Fastpac program for the Humphrey Field Analyser. A comparison was performed of the Fastpac and conventional full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in 39 eyes of 36 participants. Also a comparison study was performed of the standard and non- standard 80-point screening tests to the standard 24-2 full threshold test in 23 eyes of 23 participants. In the full threshold comparison there was 100% agreement between the two with Fastpac being 32% to 39% faster than standard. In the 80-point screening test comparison, non-standard was no faster than standard. Sensitivities were 17/17 (1.0) for non-standard and 15/18 (0.83) for standard, as compared with the standard 24-2 full threshold test. Fastpac software offers accurate screening and threshold testing in less time than the standard algorithm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)95-99
Number of pages5
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this