ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Development and evaluation of Order of Magnitude (OM): a virtual reality-based visual field analyzer for glaucoma detection.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 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
- Luminance and thresholding limitations of virtual reality headsets for visual field testing.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study introduces the Order of Magnitude (OM), a cost-effective, indigenous, virtual reality-based visual field analyzer designed for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.
methodsThe OM test employs a two-step supra-thresholding algorithm utilizing stimuli of 0.43°diameter (equivalent to Goldmann size III) at low and high thresholds. A comparative analysis was conducted against the Humphrey visual field (HVF) test, considered the gold standard in clinical practice. Participants, including those with glaucoma and normal individuals, underwent comprehensive eye examinations alongside the OM and HVF tests between April and October 2019. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the OM test were assessed against clinical diagnoses made by specialists.
resultsWe studied 157 eyes (74 glaucomatous, 83 control) of 152 participants. Results demonstrated a high level of reliability for both OM and HVF tests, with no significant difference observed (P = 0.19, Chi-square test). The sensitivity and specificity of the OM test were found to be 93% (95% CI 86-100%) and 83% (95% CI 72.4-93%), respectively, while the HVF test showed sensitivity and specificity of 98% (95% CI 93.9-100%) and 83% (95% CI 73.9-92.8%), respectively.
conclusionThese findings suggest that the OM test is non-inferior to the reference standard HVF test in identifying glaucomatous visual field loss.
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.