ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of visual function within the central 10 degrees using IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2).
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Phenotypic Analysis of Intentionally Created Monocular Visual Field Defects During Bilateral Randomized Visual Field Testing Using the Imo VifaJournal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe IMOvifa™ perimeter with a 24plus (1-2) testing mode has additional measurement points within the central 10 degrees, which may help evaluate the visual field within this area. Here, we comparatively evaluated the IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) and HFA 10-2 for the first time.
methodsWe included 30 patients (48 eyes) who underwent HFA 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated tests on the same day and HFA 10-2 within six months. We used Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to analyze the mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) between HFA 10-2 and IMOvifa™. The central 10-degree visual field was divided into four sectors, and concordance of visual field defects between IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) and HFA 10-2 was evaluated using kappa analysis. Additionally, all sectors showing a sensitivity of 0 dB on the HFA 24-2 were assessed for the presence and agreement of residual visual field in HFA 10-2 and IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2).
resultsThe MD (0.843/0.804) and PSD (0.852/0.763) of IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) and HFA 24-2 correlated strongly with those of HFA 10-2. Regarding the ability to detect visual field defects within the central 10 degrees, agreement with HFA 10-2 was κ = 0.715 (0.611,0.819) and 0.754 (0.654,0.854) for IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) and HFA 24-2, respectively. In the evaluation of residual visual field, IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) detected residual visual function in 100% of cases where HFA 10-2 indicated residual function.
conclusionThe IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) may have a higher ability to detect defects in certain areas of the visual field, compared with HFA 24-2, and may also detect residual visual function. However, the IMOvifa™ 24plus (1-2) is difficult to substitute for the 10-2 test, as the 10-2 test is necessary for evaluating visual field defects within the central 10 degrees.
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.