Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33820785›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: a qualitative study of patients' views and experiences.

Lee Jones, Tamsin Callaghan, Peter Campbell, Pete R Jones, Deanna J Taylor, Daniel S Asfaw, David F Edgar, David P Crabb

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

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lee JonesDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8030-1211
Tamsin CallaghanDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK Tamsin.Callaghan@city.ac.uk.
Peter CampbellDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Pete R JonesDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Deanna J TaylorDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8261-5225
Daniel S AsfawDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
David F EdgarDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
City, University of London · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the acceptability of home visual field (VF) testing using Eyecatcher among people with glaucoma participating in a 6-month home monitoring pilot study.

designQualitative study using face-to-face semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

settingParticipants were recruited in the UK through an advertisement in the International Glaucoma Association (now Glaucoma UK) newsletter.

participantsTwenty adults (10 women; median age: 71 years) with a diagnosis of glaucoma were recruited (including open angle and normal tension glaucoma; mean deviation=2.5 to -29.9 dB).

resultsAll participants could successfully perform VF testing at home. Interview data were coded into four overarching themes regarding experiences of undertaking VF home monitoring and attitudes towards its wider implementation in healthcare: (1) comparisons between Eyecatcher and Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA); (2) capability using Eyecatcher; (3) practicalities for effective wider scale implementation; (4) motivations for home monitoring.

conclusionsParticipants identified a broad range of benefits to VF home monitoring and discussed areas for service improvement. Eyecatcher was compared positively with conventional VF testing using HFA. Home monitoring may be acceptable to at least a subset of people with glaucoma.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual Field TestsAdultAgedFemaleHumansIntraocular PressurePilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchVision DisordersVisual Fieldsglaucomaophthalmologyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33820785
PMCPMC8030466
OpenAlexW3140137883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.