ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Online circular contrast perimetry performed in glaucoma patients in Sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-centre comparative study in Nigeria.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOnline circular contrast perimetry (OCCP) provides visual field testing on any computer or tablet, without additional hardware. Its performance has not been evaluated in an African cohort. This study compared the performance of OCCP to standard automated perimetry (SAP) in a cohort of Nigerian patients with glaucoma. SUBJECTS/
methodsAcross 404 patients (198 males, 206 females), OCCP mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were compared with SAP using paired analyses, Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation. The correlation between MD and vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) was assessed using linear regression. Reliability indices, including fixation losses (FL), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN), were also compared.
resultsMean OCCP MD was higher than SAP in both eyes (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a positive bias toward higher MD values with OCCP (1.09-1.53 dB), while ICCs indicated moderate reliability and correlation with SAP (0.52-0.53). MD showed stronger correlations with VCDR for OCCP than for SAP (r = -0.41 to -0.48 vs -0.32 to -0.41), although these differences were not statistically significant. Mean PSD values were similar between devices with minimal bias (-0.10 to -0.16 dB); however, agreement and correlation were poor (ICC 0.39; r = 0.39-0.40). Reliability indices (FL, FP, FN) were comparable between OCCP and SAP.
conclusionsOCCP demonstrates consistent moderate agreement with SAP for MD, with similar reliability. As a potential screening and surveillance tool, OCCP could be used to substantiate visual field testing in SSA, especially where perimetry availability is limited.
Identifiers
42642657What 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.