Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42181136›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026

Comparative Evaluation of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma Patients.

Peter J Weng, Sanjay Asrani, Joanne C Wen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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

3 authors.

Peter J WengDuke Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sanjay AsraniDuke Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Joanne C WenDuke Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8407-7819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare virtual reality (VR) perimetry with perimetry conducted using the Humphrey visual field (HVF). Materials and Methods: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted on patients with diagnoses of: ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, or glaucoma who had both HVF and VR 24-2 visual field testing performed as a part of their routine eye examination. Results from both devices were compared on: test duration, test preference, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and point-by-point sensitivity. Results: Seventy-nine eyes were evaluated from 50 patients with a mean age of 72.1 ± 11.8 years. Of the 79 eyes, 8 had ocular hypertension or were glaucoma suspects, 24 had mild glaucoma, 28 had moderate glaucoma, and 19 had severe glaucoma. The average test duration by HVF was significantly greater (HVF: 253 ± 65 sec vs. VR: 122 ± 6 sec, p < 0.001). Strong correlations for both MD (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) and PSD (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) were observed between HVF and VR perimetry. Point-by-point evaluation did not detect systematic differences in sensitivity between HVF and VR perimetry. Of the 48 patients who completed both tests, 41 (85.4%) indicated a preference for VR perimetry and 7 (13.6%) felt neutral between VR perimetry and HVF. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that results from HVF and VR perimetry may be comparable. While a majority of the patients preferred VR perimetry, additional studies will be necessary to assess whether VR perimetry can serve as a useful adjunct in monitoring glaucoma.

Indexed as

glaucomaperimetryvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID42181136
PMCPMC13197214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.