Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064770›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2023

Diagnostic accuracy of an iPad application for detection of visual field defects.

Quintin R Richardson, Rajesh S Kumar, B Ramgopal, Mahalakshmi V Rackenchath, Sathi Devi A V, Suria S Mannil, Sriharsha Nagaraj, Caitlin A Moe, Dionna M Wittberg, Kieran S O'Brien and 3 more

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

Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Quintin R Richardson *Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9000-9962
Rajesh S Kumar *Narayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
B RamgopalNarayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Mahalakshmi V RackenchathNarayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Sathi Devi A VNarayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Suria S MannilNarayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Sriharsha NagarajNarayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.
Caitlin A MoeFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9318-2514
Dionna M WittbergFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kieran S O'BrienFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1962-5321
Julius T OattsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3945-2077
Robert L StamperDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeremy D KeenanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. jeremy.keenan@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7118-1457
University of California, San Francisco · USNarayana Nethralaya · INCleveland Clinic · US

Funding

Village-Integrated Eye Worker trial II (VIEW II)UG1EY028097 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KEENAN, JEREMY DAVID · 2018 to 2023
$2.9M
NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY028097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesTablet-based perimetry could be used to test for glaucomatous visual field defects in settings without easy access to perimeters, although few studies have assessed diagnostic accuracy of tablet-based tests. The goal of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of iPad perimetry using the visualFields Easy application. SUBJECTS/

methodsThis was a prospective, cross-sectional study of patients undergoing their first Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) visual field test at a glaucoma clinic in India. Participants underwent 24-2 SITA Standard HFA testing and iPad-based perimetry with the visualFields Easy application. Reference standards for both visual field loss and suspected glaucoma were determined by ophthalmologist review of HFA results and optic disc photographs. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to assess diagnostic accuracy at various test thresholds.

results203 eyes from 115 participants were included, with 82 eyes classified as moderate or worse glaucoma. iPad perimetry had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.71) for detection of any visual field defect relative to HFA and an AUROC of 0.68 (0.59 to 0.76) for detection of moderate or worse glaucoma relative to ophthalmologist examination. At a set specificity of 90%, the sensitivity of iPad perimetry for detection of moderate or worse glaucoma was 35% (22-48%).

conclusionsiPad perimetry using the visualFields Easy application had inadequate diagnostic accuracy to be used as a screening tool for glaucoma in this South Indian population.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual Field TestsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityVision DisordersVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID36064770
PMCPMC10220016
OpenAlexW4294636555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.