ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Rapid campimetry - a novel robust kinetic approach for visual field screening in glaucoma.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Relative scotoma rethought-Comparison between rapid campimetry and standard automated perimetry].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Rapid Campimetry in glaucoma - correspondence with standard perimetry and OCT.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 investigate the robustness and variability of a novel kinetic visual field (VF) screening method termed rapid campimetry (RC). Methods: In RC visual field (VF) screening is enabled via kinetic-based testing on any computer (10°/4.7 s at 40-cm viewing distance) and high contrast in a dark room (1 cd/cm Results: Neither the size of the blindspot nor the VF defects differed significantly between the different testing conditions. For intra-session variability, the average bias of blindspot size was -0.6 ± 2.5°, limits of agreement (LOA), in comparison to 0.3 ± 1.5° for VF defects, both with ICC of 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. For the inter-session repeatability, the average bias and LOA for blindspot size was 0.2 ± 3.85° in comparison 1.6 ± 3.1° for VF defects, both with ICC of 0.87 and 0.91, respectively. Conclusion: RC was robust to suboptimal testing VF conditions and showed good-to-excellent reliability between VF testing visits holding high potential for teleophthalmology.
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.