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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual reality perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in adults with glaucoma: A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- [Telemetric self-monitoring of intraocular pressure: from vision to reality? : Insights from the EyeMate-SC sensor].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Evaluation of a Head-Mounted Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared with Stationary Perimeters across All Stages of Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Long-Term Intraocular Pressure Fluctuations in Open-Angle Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Predicting Variability and Reliability in Visual Field Testing: Short- and Long-Term Approaches.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Structure-Function Relationship Between Optic Nerve Head Morphometry and Virtual Reality-Based Perimetry in Open-Angle Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Commercially Available Virtual Reality Headsets for Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Eyecatcher 3.0 - Validating the Use of "Smart Glasses" as a Low-Cost, Portable Method of Assessing Visual Fields.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Telemonitoring Tools for Glaucoma Patients: A Systematic Review of Current Trends and Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Home Tonometry Diurnal Intraocular Pressure Patterns, Patient Adherence, and Measurement Reliability in a Prospective Clinical Cohort.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Peripherex Home Visual Field Demonstrates High Test-Retest Reliability, Validity.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.