Online Circular Contrast Perimetry via a Web-Application: Establishing a Normative Database for Central 10-Degree Perimetry

References

• Kingman S. Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):887–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapetanakis VV, Chan MPY, Foster PJ, Cook DG, Owen CG, Rudnicka AR. Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(1):86–93. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George R, Ve RS, Vijaya L. Glaucoma in India: estimated burden of disease. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(6):391–397. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181c4ac5b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keel S, Xie J, Foreman J, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in the Australian National eye health survey. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(2):191–195. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311786
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma P, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Schuman JS. Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53:S17–32. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;32:1–21. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hangai M, Ikeda HO, Akagi T, Yoshimura N. Paracentral scotoma in glaucoma detected by 10-2 but not by 24-2 perimetry. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014;58(2):188–196. doi:10.1007/s10384-013-0298-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboobakar IF, Friedman DS. Home monitoring for glaucoma: current applications and future directions. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36(4):310–314. doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1896759
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones PR, Smith ND, Bi W, Crabb DP. Portable perimetry using eye-tracking on a tablet computer-a feasibility assessment. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8(1):17. doi:10.1167/tvst.8.1.17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol Apr. 2008;92(4):569–573. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.135012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chew SS, Kerr NM, Wong AB, Craig JP, Chou CY, Danesh-Meyer HV. Anxiety in visual field testing. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(8):1128–1133. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz AM, Graham EC, You Y, Klistorner A, Graham SL. Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(4):346–355. doi:10.1111/ceo.13082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong YX, He M, Crowston JG, Vingrys AJ. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(6):2. doi:10.1167/tvst.5.6.2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, et al. Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1431–1443. doi:10.2147/opth.S131160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deiner MS, Damato BE, Ou Y. Implementing and monitoring at-home virtual reality oculo-kinetic perimetry during COVID-19. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(9):1258. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, et al. Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma. 2020;29(2):86–91. doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000001415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford BK, Angell B, Liew G, White AJR, Keay LJ. Improving patient access and reducing costs for glaucoma with integrated hospital and community care: a case study from Australia. Int J Integr Care. 2019;19(4):5. doi:10.5334/ijic.4642
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones PR, Campbell P, Callaghan T, et al. Glaucoma home monitoring using a tablet-based visual field test (Eyecatcher): an assessment of accuracy and adherence over 6 months. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;223:42–52. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.08.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerov J, Deng Y, Busija L, Bigirimana D, Skalicky SE. Online circular contrast perimetry: a comparison to standard automated perimetry. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol. 2023;12(1):4–15. doi:10.1097/apo.0000000000000589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerov J, Deng Y, Busija L, Skalicky SE. Circular contrast perimetry via web application: a patient appraisal and comparison to standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmol Sci. 2022;2(3):100172. doi:10.1016/j.xops.2022.100172
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skalicky SE, Bigirimana D, Busija L. Online circular contrast perimetry via a web-application: optimising parameters and establishing a normative database. Eye. 2022;1–7. doi:10.1038/s41433-022-02085-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(8):18. doi:10.1167/tvst.9.8.18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray IC, Fleck BW, Brash HM, Macrae ME, Tan LL, Minns RA. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(10):2017–2026. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razeghinejad R, Gonzalez-Garcia A, Myers JS, Katz LJ. Preliminary report on a novel virtual reality perimeter compared with standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(1):17–23. doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000001670
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedde SJ, Vinod K, Wright MM, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(1):P71–p150. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoddapp RKP E, Anderson DR. Clinical Decision in Glaucoma. C.V. Mosby; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The lens opacities classification system III. The longitudinal study of cataract study group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(6):831–836. doi:10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeppieri M, Brusini P, Parisi L, Johnson CA, Sampaolesi R, Salvetat ML. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(1):102–112. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.07.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Garcia-Feijo J, Sanchez Mendez M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Combined spatial, contrast, and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004;14(6):514–522. doi:10.5301/ejo.2008.2727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson WH, Dul MW, Horner DG, Liu T, Tran I. Assessing spatial and temporal properties of perimetric stimuli for resistance to clinical variations in retinal illumination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(1):353–359. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-11640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson WH, Dul MW, Fischer SE. Quantifying effects of retinal illuminance on frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2005;46(1):235–240. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-0264
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RS, Redmond T, McDowell DR, Breslin KM, Zlatkova MB. The robustness of various forms of perimetry to different levels of induced intraocular stray light. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(8):4022–4028. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horner DG, Dul MW, Swanson WH, Liu T, Tran I. Blur-resistant perimetric stimuli. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(5):466–474. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31828fc91d
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adam Pen Heijl VMP, Ben B. The Field Analyzer Primer: Effective Perimetry. Carl Zeiss Meditec; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Aggarwal A, Chhabra K, Kaur P, Singh K, Khosa I, Bansal P. Automated achromatic perimetry. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(1):3–10. doi:10.4103/ojo.OJO_28_2017
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(3):440–444. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu S, Yu M, Weinreb RN, Lai G, Lam DS, Leung CK. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry for detection of the development of visual field defects in glaucoma suspect eyes: a prospective study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(1):77–83. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24--2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(8):571–581. doi:10.1097/00006324-199908000-00026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren DE, Thurtell MJ, Carroll JN, Wall M. Perimetric evaluation of saccadic latency, saccadic accuracy, and visual threshold for peripheral visual stimuli in young compared with older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(8):5778–5787. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Interactions between flicker thresholds and luminance pedestals. Vision Res. 2000;40(19):2579–2588. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00121-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulholland PJ, Redmond T, Garway-Heath DF, Zlatkova MB, Anderson RS. Spatiotemporal summation of perimetric stimuli in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(11):6473–6482. doi:10.1167/iovs.15-16921
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry. SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75(4):368–375. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00392.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WCAG. WCAG definition of relative luminance. Available from: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Relative_luminance. Accessed January 03, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell FW, Green DG. Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. J Physiol. 1965;181(3):576–593. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1965.sp007784
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson WH, Horner DG, Dul MW, Malinovsky VE. Choice of stimulus range and size can reduce test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual field defects. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2014;3(5):6. doi:10.1167/tvst.3.5.6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Guymer RH, Jung CJ, et al. Measurement of retinal sensitivity on tablet devices in age-related macular degeneration. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2015;4(3):13. doi:10.1167/tvst.4.3.13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(8):2201–2204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asman P, Fingeret M, Robin A, et al. Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry. J Glaucoma. 1999;8(5):290–296. doi:10.1097/00061198-199910000-00003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordmann J-P, Mesbah M, Berdeaux G. Scoring of visual field measured through Humphrey perimetry: principal component varimax rotation followed by validated cluster analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2005;46(9):3169–3176. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-1214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedggood P, Prea SM, Kong YXG, Vingrys AJ. Scaling the size of perimetric stimuli reduces variability and returns constant thresholds across the visual field. J Vis. 2021;21(11):2. doi:10.1167/jov.21.11.2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann A, Paetzold J, Vonthein R, Krapp E, Rauscher S, Schiefer U. Age-dependent normative values for differential luminance sensitivity in automated static perimetry using the Octopus 101. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(4):446–455. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.01055.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(11):4787–4795. doi:10.1167/iovs.03-0023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vingrys AJ, Pianta MJ. A new look at threshold estimation algorithms for automated static perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(8):588–595. doi:10.1097/00006324-199908000-00028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC guidelines for the screening, prognosis, diagnosis, management and prevention of glaucoma Australian government. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cp113-cp113b. Accessed January 03, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Boodhna T, Crabb DP. More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):611. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1849-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jayaram H, Strouthidis NG, Gazzard G. The COVID-19 pandemic will redefine the future delivery of glaucoma care. Eye. 2020;34(7):1203–1205. doi:10.1038/s41433-020-0958-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaliaperumal S, Janani VS, Menon V, Sarkar S, Behera G, Kattamani S. Study of anxiety in patients with glaucoma undergoing standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography - A prospective comparative study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70(8):2883–2887. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_508_22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prea SM, Kong GYX, Guymer RH, Vingrys AJ. Uptake, persistence, and performance of weekly home monitoring of visual field in a large cohort of patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;223:286–295. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.10.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowry EA, Hou J, Hennein L, et al. Comparison of peristat online perimetry with the Humphrey perimetry in a clinic-based setting. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(4):4. doi:10.1167/tvst.5.4.4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahir HJ, Murray IJ, Parry NR, Aslam TM. Optimisation and assessment of three modern touch screen tablet computers for clinical vision testing. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo(®)) and Humphrey field analyzer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:501–513. doi:10.2147/opth.S190995
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslam TM, Murray IJ, Lai MY, Linton E, Tahir HJ, Parry NR. An assessment of a modern touch-screen tablet computer with reference to core physical characteristics necessary for clinical vision testing. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(84):20130239. doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar