ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Test Reliability and Compliance to a Twelve-Month Visual Field Telemedicine Study in Glaucoma Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Analysis of Visual Field Test Results Using Tablet-Based and Table-Mounted Devices in a Telemedicine Program Set in Underserved Areas.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Home-Based Visual Field Monitoring for Open-Angle Glaucoma Using a Web-Enabled Quantitative Perimeter (Perimouse): An Evaluation Over Six Months.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Review
- Eyecatcher 3.0 - Validating the Use of "Smart Glasses" as a Low-Cost, Portable Method of Assessing Visual Fields.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Melbourne Rapid Fields Web-Browser Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Chinese Glaucoma Patients.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- Analysis of volumetric 3D reconstruction of lamina cribrosa images from swept-source optical coherence tomography in glaucomatous and healthy subjects.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Teleophthalmology in Delivering Ophthalmic Care to Underserved Populations: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Performance of a Smart Device over 12-Months for Home Monitoring of Patients with Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Virtual Reality Portable Perimetry and Home Monitoring of Glaucoma: Retention and Compliance over a 2-year Period.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- Assessment of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of a Novel Test for Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Our primary aim is to quantify test reliability and compliance of glaucoma patients to a weekly visual field telemedicine (VFTM) schedule. A secondary aim is to determine concordance of the VFTM results to in-clinic outcomes. Methods: Participants with stable glaucoma in one eye were recruited for a 12 month VFTM trial using the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF-home, MRFh) iPad application. Participants attended routine 6 month clinical reviews and were tasked with weekly home monitoring with the MRFh over this period. We determined compliance to weekly VFTM (7 + 1 days) and test reliability (false positives (FPs) and fixation loss (FL) <33%). A secondary aim considered concordance to in-clinic measures of visual field (MRF-clinic (MRFc) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA)) in active participants (≥10 home examinations and 5 reliable HFA examinations). The linear trend in the MRFh mean deviation (MD) was compared to the HFA guided progression analysis (GPA) using Bland−Altman methods. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. Results: Forty-seven participants with a mean age of 64 ± 14.6 years were recruited for the trial. The VFTM uptake was 85% and compliance to weekly home monitoring was 75% in the presence of weekly text reminders in the analysed group (n = 20). The analysed group was composed of test subjects with five reliable in-clinic HFA examinations (GPA analysis available) and who submitted a minimum of 10 MRFh examinations from home. Of the 757 home examinations returned, approximately two-thirds were reliable, which was significantly lower than the test reliability of the HFA in-clinic (MRFh: 65% vs. HFA: 85%, p < 0.001). The HFA-GPA analysis gave little bias from the MRFh slope (bias: 0.05 dB/yr, p > 0.05). Two eyes were found to have clinical progression during the 12 month period, and both were detected by VFTM. Conclusions: VFTM over 12 months returned good compliance (75%) to weekly testing with good concordance to in-clinic assays. VFTM is a viable option for monitoring patients with glaucoma for visual field progression in between clinical visits.
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.