ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Increased Depth, Reduced Extent, and Sharpened Edges of Visual Field Defects Measured by Compass Fundus Perimeter Compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- High-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Microperimetric evaluation for different methods of epiretinal membrane surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Eye Tracking in Optometry: A Systematic Review.Journal of eye movement research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare visual field results of the COMPASS fundus perimeter (CMP) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in the same eyes; to compare structure-function concordance between circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (Cp-RNFL) profiles and the two perimetry results; and to evaluate whether differences between the two results reflect postulated advantages of real-time eye movement compensation during perimetry. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 24-2 visual field data measured with CMP and HFA together with Cp-RNFL optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan data from 95 eyes of 65 people with glaucoma. We defined visual field locations with total deviation (TD) less than -5 dB as defective. The CMP and HFA fields were compared on measures of: spatial extent (number of defective locations); depth (TD values); and sharpness of scotomata edges (maximum TD difference between defective locations and their neighbors). Structure-function concordance between Cp-RNFL profile and respective visual field was also compared. Results: Compared to the HFA, scotomata measured by CMP were of reduced spatial extent (mean difference = -3.14 locations, p < 0.001), greater depth (median TD of CMP = -17 dB versus HFA = -13 dB, p = 0.029) and steeper edges (median of maximum TD difference of CMP = 10.6 dB versus HFA = 6 dB, p < 0.001). Structure-function concordance between Cp-RNFL profile and either visual field were comparable despite the reduced scotoma spatial extent measured by CMP. Conclusions: Glaucomatous visual fields measured by CMP displayed characteristics consistent with expected effects of using real-time eye movement compensation technology compared to the widely used HFA. Translational Relevance: Glaucomatous visual field defects measured by the CMP are more localized, deeper, and steeper than those of the HFA.
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.