ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2024
Pilot study comparing a new virtual reality-based visual field test to standard perimetry in children.
Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in the management of pediatric low-grade glioma.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Review
- Review
- Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Commercially Available Virtual Reality Headsets for Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility and performance of Vivid Vision Perimetry (VVP), a new virtual reality (VR)-based visual field platform.
methodsChildren 7-18 years of age with visual acuity of 20/80 or better undergoing Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing were recruited to perform VVP, a VR-based test that uses suprathreshold stimuli to test 54 field locations and calculates a fraction seen score. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate correlation between HVF mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen scores. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience.
resultsA total of 37 eyes of 23 participants (average age, 12.9 ± 3.1 years; 48% female) were included. All participants successfully completed VVP testing. Diagnoses included glaucoma (12), glaucoma suspect (7), steroid-induced ocular hypertension (3), and craniopharyngioma (1). Sixteen participants had prior HVF experience, and none had prior VVP experience, although 7 had previously used VR. Of the 23 HVF tests performed, 9 (39%) were unreliable due to fixation losses, false positives, or false negatives. Similarly, 35% of VVP tests were unreliable (as defined by accuracy of blind spot detection). Excluding unreliable HVF tests, the correlation between HVF average mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen score was 0.48 (P = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.09-0.74). When asked about preference for the VVP or HVF examination, all participants favored the VVP, and 70% were "very satisfied" with VVP.
conclusionsIn our cohort of 23 pediatric subjects, VVP proved to be a clinically feasible VR-based visual field testing, which was uniformly preferred over HVF.
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.