Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41454015›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Pilot comparison of monocular and binocular modes of virtual reality field testing in strabismus.

Jeffrey Liu, Zara Saleem, Bo Wang, Michelle Go, Nathan L Cheung, Qiaohui W White, Adriana Ferreira, Rizul Naithani, Mays El-Dairi, Sharon F Freedman

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jeffrey Liu *Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Zara Saleem *Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Bo WangWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Michelle GoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Nathan L CheungDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Qiaohui W WhiteDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Adriana FerreiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Rizul NaithaniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Mays El-DairiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Sharon F FreedmanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, 2351 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. sharon.freedman@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual reality field (VRF) perimetry is a promising new tool for visual field assessments, offering both monocular and binocular testing modes. We aimed to examine whether ocular misalignment, known as strabismus, influences VRF outcomes between monocular and binocular testing modes, which is currently unknown. Children with non-amblyopic horizontal strabismus were enrolled and completed VRF testing (Olleyes VisuALL) in either the game-based or standard Humphrey visual field (HVF)-equivalent algorithm. Within their respective algorithms, participants completed tests in both monocular and binocular modes. Analyzed parameters included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and foveal sensitivity (FS). Additionally, a masked ophthalmologist graded whether the VRF was abnormal. Twenty-two children (44 eyes) were enrolled with a mean age of 12.1 ± 2.7 years. Regarding MD, participants who took the game-based algorithm compared to the HVF-equivalent yielded better scores (P = 0.048). For PSD, older participants exhibited better scores than younger participants (P = 0.038). Binocular and monocular mode testing were similar across all parameters, and yielded equal rates of abnormal test results (22.7% vs. 22.7%; P = 1.00). Overall, non-amblyopic horizontally strabismic children demonstrated comparable VRF outcomes in both monocular and binocular testing modes, suggesting similar utility between exam options.

Indexed as

StrabismusVirtual RealityVision, BinocularVision, MonocularVisual FieldsVisual Field TestsAdolescentAlgorithmsChildFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsBinocular modeGame-based algorithmOlleyes VisuALLPerimetryStrabismusVirtual reality field

Identifiers

PMID41454015
PMCPMC12816640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.