ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Evaluating a virtual reality visual fields analyzer in an urban, underserved glaucoma & glaucoma suspect patient populations to identify disparities.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the utility of wearable visual field perimetry in an urban, underserved patient population and identify disparities in its utility as a screening tool.
methods175 eyes from 105 participants (46 non-glaucomatous eyes from 34 participants and 113 glaucomatous eyes from 74 participants; 16 eyes failed inclusion criteria) presenting at University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey for glaucoma evaluation underwent testing by both the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer™ (HFA) and PalmScan VF2000 G2™. Glaucoma severity was classified as per the Hoddap criteria. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), mean sensitivity (MS), & area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) on analysis adjusted for inter-eye correlation.
resultsThe VF2000 and HFA significantly differed in VFI as the VF2000 consistently underestimated VFI (p = 0.003) but did not significantly differ in MD (p = 0.664) or PSD (p = 0.584). The VF2000 had significantly fewer false positives (p < 0.001) and fixation losses (p = 0.001) but was a significantly longer exam (p = 0.018). On a multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for both inter-eye correlation and demographic variables, the VF2000 had an AUC of 0.7007, indicating fair agreement when identifying severe glaucoma. Language, age, and sex did not independently impact odds of agreement between the two devices; however, differences based on the interaction of age and language were observed.
conclusionOur analysis of the Humphrey Visual Field against the virtual reality PalmScan VF2000 G2™ in an urban, diverse population found subtle disparities in predictive staging of glaucoma. Future studies may need to account for these disparities by evaluating the combinations of demographic interactions rather than evaluating them as independent, unrelated factors. KEY MESSAGES: What is known Portable perimetry and virtual reality headsets have been used with moderate efficacy in screenings for glaucoma, but gaps exist in the quality of results as compared to the Humphrey Visual Fields Analyzer. What is new The PalmScan VF2000 G2, a portable perimetry headset, may be suitable as a screening device, but it is not advanced enough to differentiate glaucoma stage as effectively as HFA analysis. Disparities along social determinants of health do exist in VF2000 detection of glaucoma, though these manifestations may be subtle and tied to the interaction of many complex factors. Future studies may benefit from examining the interaction between demographic factors as variables predictive of outcome.
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.