ArticleJournal of current glaucoma practice
Evaluating the Consistency of Online Circular Contrast Perimetry Across Different Computer Monitors: A Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Journal of current glaucoma practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Online circular contrast perimetry performed in glaucoma patients in Sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-centre comparative study in Nigeria.Eye (London, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the agreement between perimetric findings of a novel 24°, 52-loci online circular contrast perimetry (OCCP) application on three different computer monitors to determine its stability of testing across varying displays. Materials and methods: Sixty-one participants (19 healthy controls, 42 with glaucoma) underwent SAP testing followed by OCCP testing on three uncalibrated computer monitors in randomized order: a large-screen (24-inch) desktop personal computer (DPC) (Dell, Texas, US), a 17-inch laptop (LPC) (Dell), and a 14-inch MacBook Pro (MP) (Apple, California, US). Results: Agreement of mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI)/visual index (VI) values between MP, DPC, and LPC OCCP were strong, with intraclass correlations and Deming's coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 1.00 and 0.93 to 1.03, respectively. When OCCP tests were compared to SAP, ICCs and Deming's coefficients were less strong, ranging from 0.89 to 0.95 and 0.72 to 0.89. Bland-Altman analyses revealed higher biases (2.90 to 3.59 dB) and wider limits of agreement when comparing OCCP to SAP than when comparing OCCP on different monitors. Bland-Altman bias of contrast sensitivities for each 24-2 testing location revealed stronger relationships between OCCP tests on different monitors (-0.82 to 0.78) than between OCCP and SAP tests (-1.53 to 1.32). Conclusion: OCCP demonstrates strong levels of test-retest agreement when performed on computer monitors of varying display and moderate to strong levels of correlation to SAP perimetric indices. Clinical significance: With further enhancements, OCCP could potentially be used on different personal computers, which could help address current challenges in glaucoma care, such as limited access to traditional perimetric testing. This has the potential to expand the scope of glaucoma detection and monitoring, particularly in remote and underserved areas of our community. How to cite this article: Gong A, Busija L, Skalicky SE. Evaluating the Consistency of Online Circular Contrast Perimetry Across Different Computer Monitors: A Cross-sectional Study. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2025;19(1):15-27.
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.