ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
A Comparative Analysis of Visual Field Test Results Using Tablet-Based and Table-Mounted Devices in a Telemedicine Program Set in Underserved Areas.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare visual field (VF) outcomes from tablet-based (Melbourne Rapid Fields [MRF]) and table-mounted (Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer [HFA]) devices in a telemedicine program in underserved rural areas. Methods: Participants from the Alabama Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (AL-SIGHT) study completed VF testing using both HFA and MRF in counterbalanced order. Outcome measures included reliability indices, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (for HFA/PD for MRF), and VF index (for HFA)/visual capacity (VC for MRF). Analyses were conducted by eye, assessing agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Of the 253 eligible participants (mean age, 56.7 ± 12.2 years; 67.6% female; 60.1% White), 174 right eyes and 180 left eyes had reliable results on both devices. Fixation losses were higher with HFA (P < 0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for false positives and false negatives between the devices. For right eyes, agreement between tests was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.55 for MD, 0.56 for PD, and 0.65 for VC). No significant differences were observed in MD. The MRF yielded higher PD (mean difference, 0.88 dB; 95% limits of agreement, -5.01 to 3.25 dB) and lower VC (mean difference, 3.01%; 95% limits of agreement, -10.87 to 16.90%). Similar left eyes trends were observed. Conclusions: The MRF showed moderate agreement with the HFA across selected VF indices. These findings represent an initial step toward feasibility for telemedicine integration, with additional studies needed to determine reliability and clinical utility. Translational Relevance: Tablet-based perimetry shows potential for rural telemedicine settings.
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.