ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Development and Validation of an Internet-Based Remote Perimeter (Perimouse).
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We sought to validate the feasibility of Perimouse, an internet-based remote perimeter that allows for natural fixation and can be performed on most computers via a web page. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, Perimouse evaluated the visual field of 45 healthy people and 27 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma on a laptop. Participants used a mouse cursor to locate new dots on the screen that were determined by preset saccade vectors. A "click and confirm" strategy was used to eliminate the unwanted visual search. Dot brightness was either fixed at 12 dB in the suprathreshold program (screening program) or variable in the threshold program. We compared Perimouse outcomes with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Testing Algorithm standard program. Results: In the screening program, Perimouse showed moderate to high concordance with HFA. The intraclass coefficient ranged from 0.58 to 0.86 in different areas of Garway-Heath mapping. In the threshold program, normal subjects had threshold ranging from 19 to 16 dB, presenting sensitivity changes according to the "hill of vision". The test-retest difference was 0.09 dB. Habitual spectacle correction and environmental luminance (2-337 lux) had little impact on the central or peripheral threshold (P > 0.05). The correlation between Perimouse and HFA threshold sensitivity was strong (R = 0.950), although Perimouse mean defect was 4.40 dB higher than the HFA mean defect. Conclusions: Perimouse is a reliable visual field test that correlates strongly with HFA. It shows potential for population screening and monitoring visual field defects. Translational Relevance: Perimouse assesses the visual field using saccade vectors without eye trackers, enhancing its accessibility via a web page.
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.