ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2021
Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05674890 (Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Perimeter Versus the Humphrey Field Analyzer), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Perimeter Versus the Humphrey Field Analyzer
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of portable visual field-testing devices for detecting manifest glaucomatous visual-field loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Phenotypic Analysis of Intentionally Created Monocular Visual Field Defects During Bilateral Randomized Visual Field Testing Using the Imo VifaJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of structure-function correlation among IMO visual function analyser and Humphrey field analyser.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Validation of a Novel Suprathreshold Strategy for Screening Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of visual function within the central 10 degrees using IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2).PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- A case of functional visual loss diagnosed through bilateral randomized visual field testing with a trick method.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2023Article
- Identification of appropriate tools to gauge brain functions in a clinical setup of a developing country: A pilot study.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the imo perimeter, a new portable head-mounted perimeter unit that enables both eyes to be examined quickly and simultaneously, with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) perimeter to investigate correlations and their diagnostic ability in glaucomatous eyes.
methodsThe performance of the equipment in 128 glaucomatous eyes and 40 normal eyes were tested. We investigated the correlations of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, visual field index, and the sensitivity.
resultsMeasurements of mean deviation (
conclusionThe parameters by the imo and HFA in glaucomatous eyes show strong positive correlations with favorable sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ability. However, the difference between imo and HFA results increases with the increase in visual field disturbance.
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.