Multicenter Comparison of the Toronto Portable Perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer

Ahmed, Yusuf; Pereira, Austin; Bowden, Sylvie; Shi, Runjie Bill; Li, Yan; Ahmed, Iqbal Ike K.; Arshinoff, Steve A.

doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2021.07.011

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, the low test-retest variability of VVP-10 coupled with successful completion of the VVP-10 test series in all other subjects highlights the potential for remote training and administration of a portable visual field test. The overall correlation of 0.88 between VVP-10 average fraction seen and HVF MS in subjects with moderate to advanced glaucoma is similar to correlations obtained using other virtual reality-based head-mounted devices 28–31 as well as tablet-based perimeters. 32,33 Finally, although VVP-10 contained 10 sessions, subjects on average did not rate VVP-10 as more fatiguing or uncomfortable than a single HVF test.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Assessment of the Feasibility of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry

Chia

Kong

Turner

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the feasibility of remotely training glaucoma patients to take a ten-session clustered virtual reality (VR) visual field test (VVP-10) at home, analyze results for test-retest variability, and assess correspondence with conventional perimetry. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: 21 subjects with glaucoma were enrolled and included in the feasibility assessment of remote training. 36 eyes were used for test-retest analysis and determination of concordance with Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) testing. Methods: Subjects were provided with a mobile VR headset containing the VVP-10 test software and trained remotely via video conferencing. Subjects were instructed to complete ten sessions over a 14-day period. Main Outcome Measures: Feasibility was determined by the number of subjects who were able to independently complete VVP-10 over the 14-day period after one remote training session. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of average fraction seen across ten sessions and standard error (SE) for the mean were primary outcome measures for assessing test-retest variability. Correlation with HVF mean sensitivity (MS) across eyes, was a secondary outcome measure. Results: 20 subjects (95%) successfully completed the VVP-10 test series after one training session. ICC of VVP-10 was 0.95 (95% CI [0.92, 0.97]). Mean SE in units of fraction seen was 0.012. The Spearman correlations of VVP-10 average fraction seen versus HVF MS were 0.88 (95% CI [0.66, 0.99]) for moderate to advanced glaucoma eyes, and decreased to 0.68 (95% CI [0.29, 0.94]) when all eyes were included. Conclusions: Remote training of patients at home is feasible and subsequent remote clustered visual field testing using VVP-10 by patients on their own without any further interactions with caregivers or study staff was possible. At-home VVP-10 results demonstrated low test-retest variability. Future studies must be conducted to determine if VVP-10, taken at home as convenient for the patient, may be a viable supplement to provide equivalent or complementary results to that of standard in-clinic assessment of visual function in glaucoma.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Assessment of the Feasibility of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry

Chia

Kong

Turner

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples published recently have shown 95% LOAs in the range of ±4 to 5 dB for mean sensitivity. 27 , 28 Our results using this approach showed that the 95% limits of agreement for mean sensitivities were ±1.6 dB and ±1.8 dB for normal and glaucoma subjects, respectively, with minimal bias. Given the repeatability of the devices, the minimum expected limits of agreement would be around ±1 dB, so a measured agreement of ±1.6 dB and ±1.8 dB is not perfectly interchangeable but is felt to be quite good.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Validation of the Iowa Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter

Heinzman,

Linton,

Marín-Franch

et al. 2023

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the validity of visual field (VF) results from the Iowa Head-Mounted Display (HMD) Open-Source Perimeter and to test the hypothesis that VF defects and test–retest repeatability are similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters. Methods We tested 20 healthy and nine glaucoma patients on the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters using the Open Perimetry Interface platform with size V stimuli, a custom grid spanning the central 26° of the VF, and a ZEST thresholding algorithm. Historical data from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) were also analyzed. Repeatability was analyzed with the repeatability coefficient (RC), and VF defect detection was determined through side-by-side comparisons. Results The pointwise RCs were 2.6 dB and 3.4 dB for the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters in ocular healthy subjects, respectively. Likewise, the RCs were 4.2 dB and 3.5 dB, respectively, in glaucomatous patients. Limits of agreement between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters were ±4.6 dB (mean difference, 0.4 dB) for healthy patients and ±8.9 dB (mean difference, 0.1 dB) for glaucomatous patients. Retrospective analysis showed that pointwise RCs on the HFA2 perimeter were between 3.4 and 3.7 dB for healthy patients and between 3.9 and 4.7 dB for glaucoma patients. VF defects were similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 for glaucoma subjects. Conclusions The Iowa Virtual Reality HMD Open-Source Perimeter is as repeatable as the Octopus 900 perimeter and is a more portable and less expensive alternative than traditional perimeters. Translational Relevance This study demonstrates the validity of the visual field results from the Iowa HMD Open-Source Perimeter which may help expand perimetry access.

show abstract

“…Tsapakis et al (11) have devised a home-based visual field test using a PC monitor or VR glasses and suggested that it is useful for glaucoma screening. The Toronto Portable Perimeter (VEM Medical Technologies) is another perimeter with similar MD, PSD, VFI, and test duration compared with the HFA (12). Apart from these, various other approaches of visual field testing have been tried such as the flicker perimetry (13), high-pass resolution or ring perimetry (14), microperimetry (15), rarebit perimetry (16), and the edge perimetry (17).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a New Head Mount Virtual Reality Perimeter (C3 Field Analyzer) With Automated Field Analyzer in Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders

Odayappan¹,

Sivakumar²,

Kotawala³

et al. 2022

Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Automated perimetry in neurologically disabled patients is a challenge. We have devised a patientfriendly virtual reality perimeter, the C3 field analyzer (CFA). We aim to assess the utility of this as a visual field-testing device in neuro-ophthalmic patients for screening and monitoring. Methods: Neuro-ophthalmic patients and controls were selected to participate in the study between September and December 2018. They randomly underwent either the CFA or automated field analyzer (HFA) first followed by the other in an undilated state. The CFA results were compared with the HFA, and the correlation of the pattern of the field defect was assessed by an independent masked physician. Results: In total, 59 eyes of 33 neuro-ophthalmic patients (cases) and another 95 normal individuals (controls) were enrolled. CFA was found to have greater proportion of reliable fields (81.4%) than HFA (59.3%) (P = 0.009). There were less false negatives (P , 0.001) and more false positives in CFA (P , 0.001) among neuro-ophthalmic patients compared with controls. Among neuroophthalmology patients, the number of fixation losses was greater with CFA (P , 0.001), whereas false negatives were greater in HFA (P , 0.001). On assessing the pattern of the field defects, we found that there was almost 70% correlation of CFA with HFA. Moreover, in classical neurological fields such as hemianopia, the correlation was 87.5%. Conclusions: The CFA seems to correlate well with HFA in classic neurological fields such as hemianopias and may serve as an alternative in patients unable to perform a standard automated perimetry. Further developments are currently underway to incorporate threshold testing.

show abstract

Multicenter Comparison of the Toronto Portable Perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Assessment of the Feasibility of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry

Assessment of the Feasibility of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry

Validation of the Iowa Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter

Comparison of a New Head Mount Virtual Reality Perimeter (C3 Field Analyzer) With Automated Field Analyzer in Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About