ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Validation of the Iowa Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perimetry of the Central Visual Field Using a Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter in Patients with Inherited Retinal Diseases.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Virtual Reality Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma: Benefits and Drawbacks.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Interpretation of the Visual Field in Neuro-ophthalmic Disorders.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Performance of a Handheld Electroretinography Test for Glaucoma.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the validity of visual field (VF) results from the Iowa Head-Mounted Display (HMD) Open-Source Perimeter and to test the hypothesis that VF defects and test-retest repeatability are similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters. Methods: We tested 20 healthy and nine glaucoma patients on the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters using the Open Perimetry Interface platform with size V stimuli, a custom grid spanning the central 26° of the VF, and a ZEST thresholding algorithm. Historical data from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) were also analyzed. Repeatability was analyzed with the repeatability coefficient (RC), and VF defect detection was determined through side-by-side comparisons. Results: The pointwise RCs were 2.6 dB and 3.4 dB for the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters in ocular healthy subjects, respectively. Likewise, the RCs were 4.2 dB and 3.5 dB, respectively, in glaucomatous patients. Limits of agreement between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters were ±4.6 dB (mean difference, 0.4 dB) for healthy patients and ±8.9 dB (mean difference, 0.1 dB) for glaucomatous patients. Retrospective analysis showed that pointwise RCs on the HFA2 perimeter were between 3.4 and 3.7 dB for healthy patients and between 3.9 and 4.7 dB for glaucoma patients. VF defects were similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 for glaucoma subjects. Conclusions: The Iowa Virtual Reality HMD Open-Source Perimeter is as repeatable as the Octopus 900 perimeter and is a more portable and less expensive alternative than traditional perimeters. Translational Relevance: This study demonstrates the validity of the visual field results from the Iowa HMD Open-Source Perimeter which may help expand perimetry access.
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.