Comparison of Visual Field Test Measurements With a Novel Approach on a Wearable Headset to Standard Automated Perimetry.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
received:
29
07
2022
accepted:
30
04
2023
medline:
16
8
2023
pubmed:
13
6
2023
entrez:
13
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study of inter-test comparability of a novel visual field application installed on an augmented-reality portable headset and Humphrey field analyzer Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard visual field test demonstrates the excellent correlation of mean deviation (MD) and mean sensitivity (MS). To determine the correlation between visual field testing with novel software on a wearable headset versus standard automated perimetry. Patients with and without visual field defects attributable to glaucoma had visual field testing in one eye of each patient with 2 methods: re:Imagine Strategy (Heru, Inc.) and the Humphrey field analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) SITA Standard 24-2 program. Main outcome measures included MS and MD, which were evaluated by linear regression, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland Altman analysis for assessment of the mean difference and limits of agreement. Measurements from 89 eyes of 89 patients (18 normal and 71 glaucomas) were compared with both instruments. Linear regression analysis demonstrated an excellent Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.94 for MS and r = 0.95 for MD. ICC analysis demonstrated high levels of concordance (ICC = 0.95, P < 0.001 for MS and ICC = 0.94, P < 0.001 for MD). Bland-Altman analysis determined a small mean difference between the two devices (Heru minus Humphrey) of 1.15 dB for MS and 1.06 dB for MD. The Heru visual field test correlated well with SITA Standard in a population of normal eyes and eyes with glaucoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37311012
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002238
pii: 00061198-990000000-00225
pmc: PMC10414153
mid: NIHMS1899241
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
647-657Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : P30 EY014801
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: M.A.S. is an equity holder, officer, and sits on the Board of Directors for Heru, Inc. M.D., A.N., V.L., M.C., C.A.D., R.K., and C.O.-B., are employed by or have been employed by Heru, Inc. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368–375.
Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1052–1058.
Wild JM, Pacey IE, O’Neill EC, et al. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1998–2009.
Alawa KA, Nolan RP, Han E, et al. Low-cost, smartphone-based frequency doubling technology visual field testing using a head-mounted display. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105:440–444.
Kong YXG, He M, Crowston JG, et al. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:2.
Jones PR. An open-source static threshold perimetry test using remote eye-tracking (Eyecatcher): description, validation, and preliminary normative data. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9:18.
Jones L, Callaghan T, Campbell P, et al. Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: a qualitative study of patients’ views and experiences. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e043130.
Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo ® ) and Humphrey field analyzer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:501–513.
Montelongo M, Gonzalez A, Morgenstern F, et al. A virtual reality-based automated perimeter, device, and pilot study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021;10:20.
Razeghinejad R, Gonzalez-Garcia A, Myers JS, et al. Preliminary report on a novel virtual reality perimeter compared with standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:17–23.
Stapelfeldt J, Kucur SS, Huber N, et al. Virtual reality-based and conventional visual field examination comparison in healthy and glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021;10:10.
Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, et al. Validation of a head mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma. 2020;29:86–91.
Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1993.
Barlow HB. Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities. J Physiol. 1958;141:337–350.
Wilson ME. Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field. J Physiol. 1970;207:611–622.
Wilson ME. Spatial and temporal summation in impaired regions of the visual field. J Physiol. 1967;189:189–208.
Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, et al. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. 1st edition. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:974–979.
Heijl A. The Humphrey field analyzer, construction and concepts. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1985;42:77–84.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, et al. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Routledge; 2013.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–163.
Artes P, Iwase A, Ohno Y, et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654–2659.
Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, et al. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5985–5990.
Goukon H, Hirasawa K, Kasahara M, et al. Comparison of Humphrey field analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudofixation loss. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0224711.
Yohannan J, Wang J, Brown J, et al. Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:1612–1620.
Ishiyama Y, Murata H, Mayama C, et al. An objective evaluation of gaze tracking in Humphrey perimetry and the relation with the reproducibility of visual fields: a pilot study in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:8149–8152.
Aboobakar IF, Wang J, Chauhan BC, et al. Factors Predicting a greater likelihood of poor visual field reliability in glaucoma patients and suspects. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9:4.
Bengtsson B. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:519–522.
Kelly SR, Bryan SR, Crabb DP. Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter? Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97:e833–e838.
Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19–22.
Narang P, Agarwal A, Srinivasan M, et al. Advanced vision analyzer-virtual reality perimeter: device validation, functional correlation and comparison with Humphrey field analyzer. Ophthalmol Sci. 2021;1:100035.
Tsai CF, Yeh SC, Huang Y, et al. The effect of augmented reality and virtual reality on inducing anxiety for exposure therapy: a comparison using heart rate variability. J Healthc Eng. 2018;2018:1–8.
Sachin Rajpal, Mary Durbin, Alexandra Nicklin, et al. Evaluation of Patient Acceptance for Visual Field Testing with a Wearable Device. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022;63:1270–A0410.