ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Comparative Study Between the SORS and Dynamic Strategy Visual Field Testing Methods on Glaucomatous and Healthy Subjects.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Head-Mounted Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared with Stationary Perimeters across All Stages of Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Devising and Evaluating an Adaptive Static-Automated Perimetry Test for Children: A Feasibility Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Patient Comfort, Acceptance, and Tolerability of Virtual Reality (VR) Headsets with Real-Time Eye Tracking for Remote Visual Field Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Improving the robustness of the Sequentially Optimized Reconstruction Strategy (SORS) for visual field testing.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To clinically validate the noninferiority of the sequentially optimized reconstruction strategy (SORS) when compared to the dynamic strategy (DS). Methods: SORS is a novel perimetry testing strategy that evaluates a subset of test locations of a visual field (VF) test pattern and estimates the untested locations by linear approximation. When testing fewer locations, SORS has been shown in computer simulations to bring improvements in speed over conventional perimetry tests, while maintaining acquisition at high-quality acquisition. To validate SORS, a prospective clinical study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology of Bern University Hospital, over 12 months. Eighty-three subjects (32 healthy and 51 glaucoma patients with early to moderate visual field loss) of 114 participants were included in the study. The subjects underwent perimetry tests on an Octopus 900 (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland) using the G pattern with both DS and SORS. The acquired sensitivity thresholds (ST) by both tests were analyzed and compared. Results: DS-acquired VFs were used as a reference. High correlations between individual STs ( Conclusions: This clinical study showed that for healthy and glaucomatous patients, SORS-acquired VFs sufficiently correlated with the DS-acquired VFs with up to 70% reduction in acquisition time. Translational Relevance: This clinical study suggests that the novel perimetry strategy SORS could be used in routine clinical practice with comparable utility to the current standard DS, whereby providing a shorter and more comfortable perimetry experience.
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.