ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Portable perimetry devices for glaucoma patients -practicality in daily clinical practice and glaucoma expert assessment.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the practicality of two novel perimetry devices for glaucoma in daily clinical practice: a head-mounted virtual reality headset and a tablet-based perimeter. Both were compared to conventional bowl perimetry and glaucoma experts qualitatively assessed the results.
methodsThe study included 363 eyes from 199 patients. All patients performed two perimetry examinations with one or both eyes: standard automated perimetry on a conventional bowl perimeter (CBP; Octopus 900, Haag-Streit) and subsequently one of two novel perimetry methods: virtual reality perimetry (VRP; n=100 patients; "PalmScan VF2000" MicroMedicalDevice) or tablet-based perimetry using the Melbourne Rapid Fields application (MRF; n=99 patients; Glance Optical Pty.Ltd.). Additionally, a panel of 10 glaucoma experts was asked to evaluate the new methods.
resultsThere was a very high correlation between VRP and CBP for mean deviation and pattern standard deviation (ICC 0.956 and 0.825, respectively). The correlation was moderate to high with the tablet-based perimetry using the MRF application (0.832 for mean deviation and 0.566 for pattern standard deviation). 74.6% of the surveyed glaucoma experts would recommend a follow-up examination with VRP whereas only 47.1% favored a follow-up examination with MRF.
conclusionBoth novel tests closely corroborated the standard bowl perimetry measurements. The diagnostic agreement was very high for the virtual reality-perimeter and moderate to high for the tablet-based perimetry, Melbourne Rapid fields. Based on our questionnaire, most glaucoma experts would recommend a follow-up with either method with a strong preference for the virtual reality head-mounted device.
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.