Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102241›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024

Glaucoma Home Self-Testing Using VR Visual Fields and Rebound Tonometry Versus In-Clinic Perimetry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: A Pilot Study.

Andrew R Berneshawi, Ann Shue, Robert T Chang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew R BerneshawiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ann ShueDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Robert T ChangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, accuracy, and repeatability of unsupervised, at-home, multi-day glaucoma testing using the Olleyes VisuALL Virtual Reality Platform (VRP) and the iCare HOME handheld self-tonometer. Methods: Participants were trained to use two U.S. Food and Drug Administration-registered or approved devices before conducting self-tests at home over 3 consecutive days. The iCare HOME intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were collected four times daily per eye, and VRP visual field tests were performed once daily. The results were compared with one in-clinic Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) visual field test performed on the day of device training, iCare HOME measurements by the trainer, and the last five Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) results. Results: Of 15 enrolled participants, nine of them (60%) completed the study. The six excluded participants could not self-measure using iCare HOME. There was significant correlation between the average mean deviation (MD) values of the at-home VRP tests and in-clinic HFA test (r2 = 0.8793, P < 0.001). Additionally, the average of the sensitivities in five of six Garway-Heath sectors were significantly correlated. VRP test duration was also shorter than in-clinic HFA testing (P < 0.001). Finally, at-home tonometry yielded statistically similar values compared to trainer-obtained iCare HOME values. The mean and range of at-home tonometry were also statistically similar to those for in-clinic GAT, but at-home tonometry demonstrated higher maximum IOP values (P = 0.0429). Conclusions: Unsupervised, at-home, multi-day glaucoma testing using two devices resulted in the capture of higher maximum IOPs than in the clinic and good MD correlation of VRP with HFA. However, 40% of participants could not self-measure IOP using iCare HOME. Translational Relevance: The study findings suggest that at-home remote glaucoma monitoring correlates with in-office testing and could provide additional information for glaucoma management, although patients had more difficulty with the iCare HOME than the VRP.

Indexed as

GlaucomaIntraocular PressureTonometry, OcularVisual Field TestsAgedAged, 80 and overFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsSelf CareSelf-TestingVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID39102241
PMCPMC11309035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.