ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2025
Comparison of structure-function correlation among IMO visual function analyser and Humphrey field analyser.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Accurate Prediction of Humphrey 10-2 Visual Fields in Glaucoma from a Single Rapid IMOvifa 24plus(1-2).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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the structure-function correlations between optical coherence tomography (OCT) thickness parameters and the corresponding sectorial mean sensitivity (MS) values obtained with IMO visual function analyser (IMOvifa) and Humphrey field analyser (HFA) perimeters.
designProspective cross-sectional study.
methodsGlaucoma suspect, glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients underwent IMOvifa 24-2 Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated Sequential Testing, HFA 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm-Standard and OCT tests within 12 weeks. Based on the Garway-Heath map, the sensitivity points were divided in corresponding OCT peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (pRNFL) sectors, and also the central 10° points in corresponding ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness over the macula. The structure-function correlations were analysed by Spearman's rank coefficient and compared by Steiger's test.
results57 eyes of 57 patients (mean age 59.2 years, 61.4% female) with reliable field and adequate OCT strength were included in this analysis. IMOvifa had significantly shorter testing time (3.7 vs 5.3 mins), lower mean deviation (difference -0.6 dB) and greater visual field index (difference +1.0%) compared with HFA (p<0.001 for all). There was moderate to strong correlation between IMOvifa and HFA MS sectors (p<0.001 for all). IMOvifa had significant correlations in the inferior (I, r=0.46), superior (S, r=0.45), temporal (T, r=0.28) pRNFL sectors and in the I (r=0.63) and S (r=0.53) mGCPIPL hemispheres (p≤0.03 for all). There was no significant difference in the strength of the correlation of IMOvifa versus HFA results with OCT parameters (p≥0.06).
conclusionsThe IMOvifa test took less time and resulted in slightly less severe defects than HFA. MS in all sectors was moderately to strongly correlated. Function-structure correlations were similar when using either perimeter.
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.