ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of virtual reality-based portable perimetry and conventional perimetry in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare a newly developed virtual reality-based perimeter (Oculera visual field analyzer) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsIn this study, 30 eyes of 15 IIH patients were randomly tested with HFA (24-2, SITA Standard) and Oculera (24-2, Oculera Interactive) on the same visit. Test durations, global indices [visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and false negative and positive user responses were compared. Spearman correlation was used for statistical analysis.
resultsCorrelation analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the measurements of the two devices in terms of the global indices (VFI, MD, and PSD) and test duration (r = 0.361, P = 0.050; r = 0.395, P = 0.031; r = 0.408, P = 0.025; and r = 0.363, P = 0.049, respectively). The Oculera was within an acceptable range for 83.3% of eyes, considering the MD reproducibility of 1.5-4 dB for HFA. No significant difference was found between the devices in false positive and negative responses ( P = 0.098 and P = 0.395, respectively).
conclusionsStandard automated perimetry is the gold standard for detecting visual field defects, but it is costly and requires prolonged attention and stable fixation. The results of the Oculera, produced with virtual reality technology, were found to be consistent with those of the HFA, and its much lower cost and portability suggest that it has the potential to be an alternative to conventional perimeters.
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.