ArticleEye and brain2021
Sensitivity and Specificity of New Visual Field Screening Software for Diagnosing Hemianopia.
Article in Eye and brain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of pupil perimetry in detecting hemianopia under standard and virtual reality viewing conditions.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Qualitative Visual Field Tests for Screening Visual Hemifield Deficits in Right-Brain-Damaged Stroke Patients.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of the Brentano Illusion Test in the Detection of Visual Hemi-Field Deficits in Patients with Unilateral Spatial Neglect.Brain sciences · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of visual field results generated by the newly developed software (CU-VF) and the standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting hemianopia. PATIENTS AND
methodsForty-three subjects with hemianopia and 33 controls were tested with the CU-VF software on a personal computer and SAP. Hemianopia was defined as the presence of a hemianopic field respecting the vertical meridian on SAP with the corresponding neuroimaging pathology as evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists. Results of CU-VF were independently evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists, 1 general ophthalmologist, and 1 general practitioner in terms of the presence of hemianopia. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for inter-observer reliability were calculated. Satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated with a visual analog-scale questionnaire and analyzed using paired
resultsThe sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) of the CU-VF to detect hemianopia was 74.42% (58.53-85.96) and 93.94% (78.38-99.94). Kappa coefficient between neuro-ophthalmologists versus general ophthalmologist and general practitioner were 0.71 and 0.84, respectively. The mean (SD) test duration was 2.25 (0.002) minutes for the CU-VF and 5.38 (1.34) minutes for SAP (p < 0.001). Subjects reported significantly higher satisfaction and comfort using the CU-VF software compared to SAP.
conclusionThe CU-VF screening software showed good validity and reliability to detect hemianopia, with shorter test duration and higher subject satisfaction compared to SAP.
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.