Correction

This article refers to:

Agreement Between Virtual Reality Perimetry and Static Automated Perimetry in Various Neuro-Ophthalmological Conditions: A Pilot Study

Article title: Agreement Between Virtual Reality Perimetry and Static Automated Perimetry in Various Neuro-Ophthalmological Conditions: A Pilot Study

Authors: Badakere, A., Ali Mir, A., Negi, R., Kulkarni, S., Kekunnaya, R., and Sachdeva, V.

Journal: Neuro-Ophthalmology

Bibliometrics: Volume 47, Number 5-6, pages 255-261

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01658107.2023.2255651

The article originally published with an error in Table 4. The SAP versus VRP listing for Homonymous hemianopia/quadrantanopia is now listed as 90.8%.

The correct version of Table 4 appears below.

Table 4. Distribution of per cent agreement for visual field defects between standard automated perimetry (SAP) and virtual reality perimetry (VRP), between two examiners on SAP, and between two examiners on VRP.

Type of visual field defect	SAP versus VRP	SAP E1 versus E2	VRP E1 versus E2
Bitemporal hemianopia	93.8%	95%	92.3%
Homonymous hemianopia/quadrantanopia	90.8%	92.8%	82%
Inferior/superior altitudinal visual field defect	79.4%	91%	83%
Generalised visual field defet	86.4%	92%	76.4%
Central/centrocaecal scotoma	60%	83.3%	50%
Enlarged blind spot	38%	75%	33%
Normal	54%	87%	30%

E1 = examiner 1; E2 = examiner 2; SAP = standard automated perimetry; VRP = virtual reality perimetry.