Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32747334›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2021

Using an open-source tablet perimeter (Eyecatcher) as a rapid triage measure for glaucoma clinic waiting areas.

Pete R Jones, Dan Lindfield, David P Crabb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Evaluating a virtual reality visual fields analyzer in an urban, underserved glaucoma & glaucoma suspect patient populations to identify disparities.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. [Telemedical applications in ophthalmology in times of COVID-19].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Review
  13. [Is home perimetry possible?]Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Pete R JonesDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City University of London, London, UK peter.jones@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7672-8397
Dan LindfieldGlaucoma Services, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7232-9767
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8754-3902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlaucoma services are under unprecedented strain. The UK Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch recently called for new ways to identify glaucoma patients most at risk of developing sight loss, and of filtering-out false-positive referrals. Here, we evaluate the feasibility of one such technology, Eyecatcher: a free, tablet-based 'triage' perimeter, designed to be used unsupervised in clinic waiting areas. Eyecatcher does not require a button or headrest: patients are simply required to look at fixed-luminance dots as they appear.

methodsSeventy-seven people were tested twice using Eyecatcher (one eye only) while waiting for a routine appointment in a UK glaucoma clinic. The sample included individuals with an established diagnosis of glaucoma, and false-positive new referrals (no visual field or optic nerve abnormalities). No attempts were made to control the testing environment. Patients wore their own glasses and received minimal task instruction.

resultsEyecatcher was fast (median: 2.5 min), produced results in good agreement with standard automated perimetry (SAP), and was rated as more enjoyable, less tiring and easier to perform than SAP (all p<0.001). It exhibited good separation (area under receiver operating characteristic=0.97) between eyes with advanced field loss (mean deviation (MD) < -6 dB) and those within normal limits (MD > -2 dB). And it was able to flag two thirds of false-positive referrals as functionally normal. However, eight people (10%) failed to complete the test twice, and reasons for this limitation are discussed.

conclusionsTablet-based eye-movement perimetry could potentially provide a pragmatic way of triaging busy glaucoma clinics (ie, flagging high-risk patients and possible false-positive referrals).

Indexed as

AgedFemaleGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedOptic DiskROC CurveTriageVisual FieldsVisual Field Testsdiagnostic tests/Investigationfield of visionglaucomapsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID32747334
PMCPMC8077219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.