Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42789528›Full record

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.

Arun J Thirunavukarasu, Victor H Hu, Pete R Jones, Elliott H Taylor, Einoti Matayan, Sia Mbishi, Edith Macha, Tara Mtuy, David P Crabb, William Makupa and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

12 authors.

Arun J ThirunavukarasuInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8968-4768
Victor H HuInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9883-668X
Pete R JonesSchool of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7672-8397
Elliott H TaylorInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Einoti MatayanKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania.
Sia MbishiKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania.
Edith MachaKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania.
Tara MtuyInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
David P CrabbSchool of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
William MakupaKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Heiko PhilippinInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5380-6994

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42789528
PMCPMC13614570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.