ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Diagnostic performance of pupil perimetry in detecting hemianopia under standard and virtual reality viewing conditions.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the diagnostic performance and reliability of two pupil perimetry (PP) methods in homonymous hemianopia.
methodsThis cross-sectional monocenter cohort study performed gaze-contingent flicker PP (gcFPP) and a virtual reality version of gcFPP (VRgcFPP) twice on separate occasions in all patients suffering from homonymous hemianopia due to neurological impairment. The main outcomes were (1) test accuracy and (2) test-retest reliability: (1) was measured through area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) calculation of (VR)gcFPP results with comparators being SAP and healthy controls, respectively; (2) was evaluated by comparing tests 1 and 2 of both methods within patients.
resultsBoth gcFPP and VRgcFPP were performed in 15 patients (12 males, M
conclusionsOverall, these results can be summarized as follows: (1) the comparison of pupil response amplitudes between intact versus damaged regions per patient indicate that gcFPP allows for cleaner imaging of intact versus damaged visual field regions than VRgcFPP, (2) the comparisons of average differences in intact versus damaged amplitudes between patients and controls demonstrate high diagnostic performance of both gcFPP and VRgcFPP, and (3) the test-retest reliabilities confirm that both gcFPP and VRgcFPP reliably and consistently measure defects in homonymous hemianopia. KEY MESSAGES: What is known Standard automated perimetry is the current gold standard for visual field examination, but not always suited for the evaluation of the VF in neurologically impaired patients. Pupil perimetry consists of the measurement of pupillary responses to light stimuli as a measure of visual sensitivity. What is new This study reports the highest diagnostic accuracy of pupil perimetry so far in patients with homonymous hemianopia. Gaze-contingent flicker pupil perimetry reliably and consistently measures defects in homonymous hemianopia under standard and virtual reality viewing conditions.
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.