Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33323582›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021

Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population.

Parul Ichhpujani, Sahil Thakur, Roopjit K Sahi, Suresh Kumar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
    Review
  10. [Is home perimetry possible?]Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Parul IchhpujaniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Sahil ThakurDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India; Research Fellow, Department of Ocular Epidemiology, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Roopjit K SahiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Suresh KumarDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Government Medical College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the perimetric outcomes using a free application program of the iPad, 'Visual Fields Easy' (VFE), and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HVFA), in normal as well as eyes with glaucomatous damage of varying severity. Methods: In this prospective, cross-sectional, observational pilot investigation, visual field testing was carried out in 210 eyes of 210 patients (60 Normal, 150 Glaucoma), using suprathreshold VFE application (Version 8) on the iPad and Standard White-on-White using HVFA. Severity of glaucoma was categorized using Hodapp-Anderson-Parrish criteria for visual field defects. The results of the VFE program were compared to the 24-2 SITA FAST HVFA. Results: Data of 210 patients, 100 (47.6%) females, and 110 (52.4%) males, age ranging from 42 to 78 years, Mean 56.64 ± 10.67 years, was analyzed. The Spearman correlation coefficient showed a significant inverse relationship between missed points on the VFE app with MD (S = -0.783) and a parabolic relationship with PSD (S = 0.646) values obtained with the HVFA. As regards missed points, for mild glaucoma, missed points were 37.5, sensitivity was 77.8% and specificity was 52.6%; for moderate glaucoma, missed points were 33.5, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 48% while for severe glaucoma, missed points were 23, sensitivity was 97% and specificity was 70%. AROC for eyes with mild glaucoma versus normal was 0.419 (95% CI: 0.343-0.495), moderate glaucoma versus normal was 0.705 (95% CI: 0.630-0.780) and severe glaucoma versus normal was 0.857 (95% CI: 0.806-0.908). Conclusion: Suprathreshold perimetry using VFE is not suitable as a rapid screening tool for mass screening of glaucoma. VFE cannot be used as a substitute for HVFA in clinic because of its inability to detect early or moderate glaucoma.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual Field TestsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTabletsVision DisordersVisual FieldsTabletsSuprathreshold testingtablet perimetryVisual Fields Easy

Identifiers

PMID33323582
PMCPMC7926121
OpenAlexW3110901614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.