ArticleOphthalmology science
Reference Database for a Novel Binocular Visual Function Perimeter: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Comparison of Visual Field Assessments Between the Humphrey Field Analyzer, Tempo, and Virtual Eye Elite Perimeters.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Trial
- Larger Real-World OCT Reference Database Improves Accuracy of Glaucoma Flagging Using Summary Metrics.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To construct a comprehensive reference database (RDB) for a novel binocular automated perimeter. Design: A four-site prospective randomized clinical trial. Subjects and Controls: Three hundred fifty-six healthy subjects without ocular conditions that might affect visual function were categorized into 7 age groups. Methods: Subjects underwent comprehensive ocular examination of both eyes before enrollment. Using the TEMPO/IMOvifa automated perimeter (Topcon Healthcare/CREWT Medical Systems), each subject completed 4 binocular threshold visual field (VF) tests during a single visit: First, practice 24-2 and 10-2 tests were obtained from both eyes. Next, study 24-2 and 10-2 tests were obtained from both eyes. Test order of each sequence was randomized, and the tests were conducted under standard automated perimetry testing conditions: Goldmann stimulus size III, 3183 cd/m Main Outcome Measures: Perimetric threshold sensitivity and reference limits for each test analysis parameter. Results: The ages of the study cohort were widely distributed, with a mean age (standard deviation [SD]) of 52.3 (18.5) years. Sex assignment was 44.0% male and 56.0% female. The majority of subjects self-identified as White (67.4%), followed by Black or African American (13.5%) and Asian (8.7%), with 14.6% self-identified as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean sensitivity (SD) was 29.1 (1.3) decibels (dB) for the 24-2 and 32.4 (1.0) dB for the 10-2 test. For the 24-2 and 10-2, mean sensitivity (SD) age-related changes averaged -0.06 (0.01) dB and -0.05 (0.01) dB per year, respectively. The normal range of pointwise threshold sensitivity increased with eccentricity and showed asymmetry around the mean, particularly notable in the 24-2 test. Mean (SD) binocular test duration was 3.18 (0.38) minutes (1 minute 35 seconds per eye) for the 24-2 test and 3.58 (0.43) minutes (1 minute 47 seconds per eye) for the 10-2 test. Conclusions: An RDB for the TEMPO/IMOvifa perimeter was established, highlighting the significance of considering both age and stimulus eccentricity in interpreting threshold VF test results. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.