ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
A comparative analysis of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examination for visual field, visual acuity, and color vision in neuro-ophthalmology.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the AI-assisted Virtual Reality Platform (VRP) with technician-assisted exams for assessing visual acuity, color vision (CV), and visual field (VF) in a neuro-ophthalmology clinic.
methodsA comparative, cross-sectional study including 59 adult patients was performed in the neuro-ophthalmology clinic at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. The Snellen chart for visual acuity, Ishihara testing, and the SITA or AVA Fast strategy for VF testing were used in both the VRP and technician-based examinations. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), CV results, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and reliability indices were collected.
resultsThe study included 118 eyes with a mean age of 47.2 ± 18.8 (71.19% female). Significant positive correlations were found between the VRP and technician-based examination for BCVA (r = .641, P<.001) and CV (r = .824, P<.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between VRP and the traditional exams for BCVA (mean bias 0.09 ± 0.25, limits of agreement (LOA): [0.58] to [-0.40]) and CV (mean bias 0.07 ± 0.11. LOA: [0.29] to [-0.16]). The MD and PSD of the VRP were significantly correlated with the standard Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) exam (MD: r = .91, P<.001; PSD: r = .88, P<.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -0.71 ± 2.81 for MD and - 0.90 ± 2.08 for PSD. The VRP reduced test duration (124.31 ± 0.35 s) compared to the standard exam (256.8 ± 7.1 s, P<.0001).
conclusionsThe VisuALL VRP, a compact portable device, effectively provides results comparable to technician-based assessments in neuro-ophthalmological patients while reducing test duration and improving 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.