Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Visual Field Assessments Between the Humphrey Field Analyzer, Tempo, and Virtual Eye Elite Perimeters.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare test duration and the agreement of summary metrics between the TEMPO, Virtual Eye ELITE (VEE), and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) perimeters. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Subjects were excluded if they were unable to tolerate ophthalmic imaging or had any ocular or systemic conditions that could affect visual field test results, such as age-related macular degeneration, peripheral retinal disease, or severe glaucoma. Eligible subjects were assessed at 1 visit with all perimeters for total bilateral acquisition time, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), foveal threshold (FT), visual field index (VFI), false positives and false negatives, and administered a questionnaire. Results: A total of 54 subjects completed the study. Mean bilateral visual field acquisition time differences were significant between TEMPO and HFA (p < 0.001) and TEMPO and VEE (p < 0.001), and not significant between HFA and VEE (p = 0.34). Mean MD differences were not significant between TEMPO and HFA (p = 0.96) and were significant for TEMPO and VEE (p = 0.01) and HFA and VEE (p = 0.02). Mean PSD differences were not significant between TEMPO and HFA (p = 0.27), TEMPO and VEE (p = 0.72), or HFA and VEE (p = 0.72). Mean foveal threshold differences were significant between TEMPO and HFA (p < 0.001), TEMPO and VEE (p < 0.001), and HFA and VEE (p < 0.001). A significantly higher percentage of subjects reported agreement that the testing was "Easy" to perform with the TEMPO compared to HFA (p < 0.001), TEMPO compared to VEE (p = 0.006), and with VEE compared to HFA (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The results suggest similar summary metrics between the HFA, TEMPO, and VEE perimeters. There was faster acquisition time with the TEMPO. These results also indicate the potential for streamlined clinical workflow.
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.