Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29028825›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Specvis: Free and open-source software for visual field examination.

Piotr Dzwiniel, Mateusz Gola, Anna Wójcik-Gryciuk, Wioletta J Waleszczyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Piotr DzwinielNencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Mateusz GolaInstitute of Psychology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna Wójcik-GryciukNencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Wioletta J WaleszczykNencki Institute of Experimental Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7300-6193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual field impairment affects more than 100 million people globally. However, due to the lack of the access to appropriate ophthalmic healthcare in undeveloped regions as a result of associated costs and expertise this number may be an underestimate. Improved access to affordable diagnostic software designed for visual field examination could slow the progression of diseases, such as glaucoma, allowing for early diagnosis and intervention. We have developed Specvis, a free and open-source application written in Java programming language that can run on any personal computer to meet this requirement (http://www.specvis.pl/). Specvis was tested on glaucomatous, retinitis pigmentosa and stroke patients and the results were compared to results using the Medmont M700 Automated Static Perimeter. The application was also tested for inter-test intrapersonal variability. The results from both validation studies indicated low inter-test intrapersonal variability, and suitable reliability for a fast and simple assessment of visual field impairment. Specvis easily identifies visual field areas of zero sensitivity and allows for evaluation of its levels throughout the visual field. Thus, Specvis is a new, reliable application that can be successfully used for visual field examination and can fill the gap between confrontation and perimetry tests. The main advantages of Specvis over existing methods are its availability (free), affordability (runs on any personal computer), and reliability (comparable to high-cost solutions).

Indexed as

SoftwareAdultAgedEye DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID29028825
PMCPMC5640235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.