Chris A Johnson1, Suman Thapa2, Yu Xiang George Kong3, Alan L Robin4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic address: chris-a-johnson@uiowa.edu. 2. Nepal Glaucoma Eye Clinic, Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology, Kathmandu, Nepal. 3. Cambridge University Hospital, NHS, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Centre of Eye Research Australia, Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of Visual Fields Easy (VFE), a free iPad app, for performing suprathreshold perimetric screening. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional validation study. METHODS: We performed screening visual fields using a calibrated iPad 2 with the VFE application on 206 subjects (411 eyes): 210 normal (NL), 183 glaucoma (GL), and 18 diabetic retinopathy (DR) at Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology, Kathmandu, Nepal. We correlated the results with a Humphrey Field Analyzer using 24-2 SITA Standard tests on 373 of these eyes (198 NL, 160 GL, 15 DR). RESULTS: The number of missed locations on the VFE correlated with mean deviation (MD, r = 0.79), pattern standard deviation (PSD, r = 0.60), and number of locations that were worse than the 95% confidence limits for total deviation (r = 0.51) and pattern deviation (r = 0.68) using SITA Standard. iPad suprathreshold perimetry was able to detect most visual field deficits with moderate (MD of -6 to -12 dB) and advanced (MD worse than -12 dB) loss, but had greater difficulty in detecting early (MD better than -6 dB) loss, primarily owing to an elevated false-positive response rate. The average time to perform the Visual Fields Easy test was 3 minutes, 18 seconds (standard deviation = 16.88 seconds). DISCUSSION: The Visual Fields Easy test procedure is a portable, fast, effective procedure for detecting moderate and advanced visual field loss. Improvements are currently underway to monitor eye and head tracking during testing, reduce testing time, improve performance, and eliminate the need to touch the video screen surface.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of Visual Fields Easy (VFE), a free iPad app, for performing suprathreshold perimetric screening. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional validation study. METHODS: We performed screening visual fields using a calibrated iPad 2 with the VFE application on 206 subjects (411 eyes): 210 normal (NL), 183 glaucoma (GL), and 18 diabetic retinopathy (DR) at Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology, Kathmandu, Nepal. We correlated the results with a Humphrey Field Analyzer using 24-2 SITA Standard tests on 373 of these eyes (198 NL, 160 GL, 15 DR). RESULTS: The number of missed locations on the VFE correlated with mean deviation (MD, r = 0.79), pattern standard deviation (PSD, r = 0.60), and number of locations that were worse than the 95% confidence limits for total deviation (r = 0.51) and pattern deviation (r = 0.68) using SITA Standard. iPad suprathreshold perimetry was able to detect most visual field deficits with moderate (MD of -6 to -12 dB) and advanced (MD worse than -12 dB) loss, but had greater difficulty in detecting early (MD better than -6 dB) loss, primarily owing to an elevated false-positive response rate. The average time to perform the Visual Fields Easy test was 3 minutes, 18 seconds (standard deviation = 16.88 seconds). DISCUSSION: The Visual Fields Easy test procedure is a portable, fast, effective procedure for detecting moderate and advanced visual field loss. Improvements are currently underway to monitor eye and head tracking during testing, reduce testing time, improve performance, and eliminate the need to touch the video screen surface.
Authors: Pete R Jones; Heiko Philippin; William U Makupa; Matthew J Burton; David P Crabb Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: James M Bardes; Daniel J Grabo; James Donovan; Alexander Albuquerque; Kennith Conley Coleman; Sijin Wen; Alison Wilson; John Nguyen; Allison Bardes Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.697