SynthesisPloS one2025
Virtual reality perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in adults with glaucoma: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Evaluation of a Head-Mounted Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared with Stationary Perimeters across All Stages of 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
- Feasibility and performance of eye movement perimetry for glaucoma triage in Tanzania: A prospective cross-sectional study in a real-world setting.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Pilot comparison of monocular and binocular modes of virtual reality field testing in strabismus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Assessment of a Virtual Reality Perimeter Versus the Humphrey Field Analyzer: Comparative Reliability, Usability, and Prospective Applications.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Patient Comfort, Acceptance, and Tolerability of Virtual Reality (VR) Headsets with Real-Time Eye Tracking for Remote Visual Field Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to consolidate and summarize available data comparing virtual reality perimetry (VRP) with standard automated perimetry (SAP) in adults with glaucoma. Understanding the utility and diagnostic performance of emerging VRP technology may expand access to visual field testing but requires evidence-based validation.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed Central, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from the date of inception to 10/09/2024. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials or prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared different modalities of VRP to SAP in adults >18 years of age with glaucoma. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, letters, case reports, abstract-only papers, unavailable full text, or non-English language. Identified studies were formally evaluated for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO in May 2023 (registration number: CRD42023429071).
resultsThe literature search yielded 1657 results. After deduplication, abstract and title screening, 14 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final systematic review. Compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer or Octopus 900, 10 different VRP devices were included in our study: Oculus Quest, Smartphone-based Campimetry, Toronto Portable Perimeter, VirtualEye, Advance Vision Analyzer, VisuALL, Vivid Vision Perimeter, C3 fields visual field analyzer, Radius, and Virtual Field. Overall, published studies of VRP are promising; however, more work is required to better evaluate these devices, namely test-retest repeatability.
conclusionsVRP holds strong potential to evaluate visual fields in adults with glaucoma, though further data is needed to validate emerging technologies and testing protocols. Eye providers may consider using these devices to monitor certain adults with glaucoma.
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.