ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Eye-tracking-based visual field analysis (EFA): a reliable and precise perimetric methodology for the assessment of visual field defects.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping simulated visual field defects with movie-viewing pupil perimetry.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Advancing neuro-ophthalmic diagnostics: a multimodal imaging approach integrating OCT angiography and AI-enhanced MRI for improved visual pathway analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Pediatric eye movement-based perimetry: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- MAIA and Humphrey Perimetry Differ in Their Estimation of Homonymous Visual Field Defects.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Development of Automated Visual Acuity Measurement Using a Calibration-Free Eye-Tracking System.Cureus · 2024Article
- [Virtual reality perimetry and home perimetry].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Placebo effect after visual restitution training: no eye-tracking controlled perimetric improvement after visual border stimulation in late subacute and chronic visual field defects after stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Neuroprotection in neurodegenerations of the brain and eye: Lessons from the past and directions for the future.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Patients Prefer a Virtual Reality Approach Over a Similarly Performing Screen-Based Approach for Continuous Oculomotor-Based Screening of Glaucomatous and Neuro-Ophthalmological Visual Field Defects.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Salzburg Visual Field Trainer (SVFT): A virtual reality device for (the evaluation of) neuropsychological rehabilitation.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSeveral studies report evidence for training-related neuroplasticity in the visual cortex, while other studies suggest that improvements simply reflect inadequate eye fixation control during perimetric prediagnostics and postdiagnostics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To improve diagnostics, a new eye-tracking-based methodology for visual field analysis (eye-tracking-based visual field analysis (EFA)) was developed. The EFA is based on static automated perimetry and additionally takes individual eye movements in real time into account and compensates for them. In the present study, an evaluation of the EFA with the help of blind spots of 58 healthy participants and the individual visual field defects of 23 clinical patients is provided. With the help of the EFA, optical coherence tomography, Goldmann perimetry and a Humphrey field analyser, these natural and acquired scotomas were diagnosed and the results were compared accordingly.
resultsThe EFA provides a SE of measurement of 0.38° for the right eye (OD) and 0.50° for the left eye (OS), leading to 0.44° of visual angle for both eyes (OU). Based on participants' individual results, the EFA provides disattenuated correlation (validity) of 1.00 for both OD and OS. Results from patients suffering from cortical lesions and glaucoma further indicate that the EFA is capable of diagnosing acquired scotoma validly and is applicable for clinical use.
conclusionOutcomes indicate that the EFA is highly reliable and precise in diagnosing individual shape and location of scotoma and capable of recording changes of visual field defects (after intervention) with unprecedented precision. Test duration is comparable to established instruments and due to the high customisability of the EFA, assessment duration can be shortened by adapting the diagnostic procedure to the patients' individual visual field characteristics. Therefore, the saccade-compensating methodology enables researchers and healthcare professionals to rule out eye movements as a source of inaccuracies in pre-, post-, and follow-up assessments.
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.