ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Measuring Visual Fields in Children With Glaucoma Using a Portable Tablet.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Ferroptosis: a novel mechanism of cell death in ophthalmic conditions.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare perimetric outcomes of an iPad perimetry app (Melbourne Rapid Fields [MRF]) with those of the Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) testing children with glaucoma. Methods: Sixteen children diagnosed and treated for glaucoma were recruited to evaluate their perimetric performance over two visits. At each visit, they undertook visual field assessment using the MRF application as well as the HFA. The HFA test was part of their usual clinical work up and a clinical assistant judged which test format (24-2 SITA standard or SITA fast) might be suited to the testing of that child. The primary outcome measure was the association and repeatability of mean deviation (MD) for the MRF and HFA tests, by way of regression, intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. Secondary measures were comparisons of pattern deviation indices, test times as well as an indication of participant test preference. Summary data show means ± standard deviation. Results: The age for our cohort was 7 to 15 years of age (mean, 10.0 ± 2.4 years of age). The MRF MD was in close concordance to HFA MD with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95). Bland-Altman analysis found little bias (-0.6 dB) and a 95% coefficient of repeatability of 2.1 dB in eyes having a normal HFA MD. In eyes with glaucomatous visual field defects the 95% coefficient of repeatability at retest was much larger for both the MRF (10.5 dB) as well as for the HFA (10.0 dB). Average MRF test times (5.6 ± 1.2 minutes) were similar to SITA Fast (5.4 ± 1.9 minutes) with both being significantly faster than SITA standard (8.6 ± 1.4 minutes; P < 0.001). All children chose testing with the MRF as their preference. Conclusions: MRF correlated strongly with HFA and was preferred by the children over the HFA. MRF is suitable for perimetric evaluation of children with glaucoma. Translational Relevance: This study finds that an iPad based visual field test can be used with children having glaucoma to yield outcomes similar to SITA-fast. Children indicate a preference for such testing.
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.