ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Evaluation of a Head-Mounted Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared with Stationary Perimeters across All Stages of Glaucoma.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate agreement between a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter (VRP) and a conventional standard automated perimeter (SAP) in individuals with glaucoma across all stages of disease severity, including advanced visual field (VF) loss. Design: Prospective, single-center observational study. Participants: Adults with glaucoma undergoing VF testing; 120 matched VFs from 73 participants met the inclusion criteria. Methods: Participants underwent VF testing using a VRP (VisionOne; PeriVision AG) and SAP (Octopus 900; Haag-Streit AG) during a single visit. Global indices (mean sensitivity [MS], mean defect [MD]), pointwise sensitivity, and total deviation (TD) were compared. Agreement and association were assessed using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. Stage-wise analyses evaluated interdevice differences across mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma. Test duration, reliability indices, and simulator-related discomfort were also assessed. Main Outcome Measures: Interdevice agreement for global VF indices (MS and MD), pointwise sensitivity and TD, and test performance measures (duration, reliability indices, and simulator-related discomfort). Results: Strong correlations were observed between VRP and SAP for global indices (MS and MD: ρ = 0.97; Conclusions: The VisionOne head-mounted VRP demonstrated strong agreement with conventional SAP for VF assessment, including cases of significant VF loss, supporting its clinical validity. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.