ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: This study aimed to compare the results of the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) and HFA 24-2 visual field tests. Patients and Methods: We included 52 patients (104 eyes) with glaucoma who visited Chukyo Eye Clinic between June 2023 and March 2024. On the same day, the HFA 24-2 test using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) test using the Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated strategy were performed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare fixation, false positives, false negatives, and total test time for both eyes between the HFA and IMO vifa tests. Only eyes with reliable test results were selected, and the visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were examined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The test times for the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were 716.83±118.80 and 628.75±142.70 s, respectively, with the IMO vifa being significantly shorter (P<0.001). For fixation, the results were 15.85±16.57% and 11.09±15.20%, with significantly better fixation in the IMO vifa (P<0.0001). False positives and negatives were 4.52±5.19 / 4.14±6.85% and 4.97±7.99 / 5.47±7.86%, respectively, with no significant differences, though the IMO vifa showed a slightly higher trend (P=0.980, 0.056). In eyes with reliable results, the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) outcomes were as follows: MD (-6.45±7.23, -6.85±7.35, P=0.724), PSD (7.13±4.75, 7.49±4.87, P=0.061), VFI (80.86±21.61, 80.86±21.74, P=0.644). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were MD: 0.938, PSD: 0.949, VFI: 0.932 (all P<0.001). Conclusion: The IMO vifa demonstrates a very high correlation with HFA and allows for a shorter examination time. Fixation errors are significantly improved compared to HFA, while there is no significant difference in false positives or false negatives.
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.