ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Evaluation of an Augmented-Reality Head-Mounted Display Among Patients With Glaucomatous Tunnel Vision.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an augmented-reality (AR) head-mounted display (HMD) in patients with glaucomatous tunnel vision. Methods: Fifteen patients with glaucoma with a central visual field (VF) of less than 20 degrees in radius in their better eye and 15 healthy controls were enrolled. Patients completed visual function (kinetic VF, contrast sensitivity [CS], and visual acuity [VA]), visual search, and mobility tests with and without the device. For initial validation of the performance-based tests and the device, a perforated eye mask was used to simulate the peripheral field loss (PFL) in healthy controls. Results: The VF area of the better eye significantly increased when patients used the device (P <0.001). Better-eye CS improved with the device in both normal (P < 0.001) and contrast modes (P = 0.014). Better-eye VA did not significantly improve with device use. Similar results were observed in patients' worse eyes. A significant reduction in average search time was observed when patients used the device (P = 0.001), whereas the task scores did not significantly change. The average walking time was prolonged with device use (P = 0.001), whereas obstacle avoidance scores showed no significant differences. Comparable test results were demonstrated in both healthy controls and subjects with simulated PFLs. Conclusions: The AR HMD significantly improved the VF, CS, and visual search performance of patients with glaucomatous tunnel vision, but it did not improve patients' VA and mobility performance. Translational Relevance: These findings provide evidence for the potential of AR-based devices in vision rehabilitation and may offer insights for the future optimization of such technologies.
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.