ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- A comparative analysis of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examination for visual field, visual acuity, and color vision in neuro-ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Phenotypic Analysis of Intentionally Created Monocular Visual Field Defects During Bilateral Randomized Visual Field Testing Using the Imo VifaJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of structure-function correlation among IMO visual function analyser and Humphrey field analyser.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Eyecatcher 3.0 - Validating the Use of "Smart Glasses" as a Low-Cost, Portable Method of Assessing Visual Fields.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Glaucoma Detection Performance of Binocular Perimetry Screening Program Using imo Perimetry With Frequency Doubling Technology.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
- Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the results of a visual field (VF) test for patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. These patients exhibit fixation loss (FL) rates >20% with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); however, actual fixation stabilizes when a head-mounted perimeter (imo) is used. This device is able to adjust the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements. We subjected 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL to the HFA 30-2 or 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm -Standard protocol. All patients also underwent the imo 30-2 or 24-2 Ambient Interactive Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing protocol after HFA measurement. We compared HFA and imo reliability indices [including false-positive (FP) responses, false-negative (FN) responses, and FL rate], global indices [including mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and retinal sensitivity for each test point. There were no significant differences in MD, VFI, and PSD between HFA and imo, and these measures were strongly correlated (r > 0.96, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in FP and FN between both devices, while FL measured with HFA (27.5%) was significantly reduced when measured with imo (13.2%) (p < 0.01). There was no correlation in FL and FN between both devices, and a weak correlation for FP (r = 0.29, p = 0.04). At each test point, retinal sensitivity averaged 1.7 dB higher with HFA, compared with imo (p < 0.01). There was no significant variability in global indices in patients with pseudo-FL. The FP response rate might have influenced measures of FL in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.