ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Feasibility and performance of eye movement perimetry for glaucoma triage in Tanzania: A prospective cross-sectional study in a real-world setting.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Triaging access to glaucoma diagnostics could allow patients to receive earlier care to slow disease progression. There is a particular need in lower-resource settings where the cost and lack of portability of standard automated perimetry (SAP) restrict access. Eye movement perimetry (EMP) uses eye-tracking technology to provide a rapid assessment of the visual field using a tablet computer. A cross-sectional study in Tanzania was undertaken to assess the feasibility of EMP as an initial glaucoma triage tool. EMP hit rate correlated with SAP mean deviation in 370 eyes (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.441, p < 0.001) and graphical comparisons indicated good localisation of defects. In emulated triage of 232 participants, EMP exhibited very high (100.0%) sensitivity (95%CI: 95.5 to 100.0%) in identifying eyes with mean deviation ≤ -6 dB), meaning that a high EMP hit rate was strong evidence of a healthy visual field. However, specificity was 20.7% (95%CI: 15.0 to 27.8%), meaning that many individuals with no severe field defect would require SAP to confirm this. Specificity was limited by EMP test failure, which occurred in 75 of 480 eyes (15.6%), as well as export or processing failure which occurred in 35 eyes (7.3%). Participants preferred EMP to SAP testing and agreed that it was easy to perform. In a real-world setting, EMP rapidly and accurately identifies patients without a significant visual field defect. However, refinement is required to reduce the high number of unnecessary referrals or false positives for EMP to prove useful as a triage tool.
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.