Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy

Figures & data

Table 1 Basic Parameters of Available Applications (Apps) for Tablet Perimetry

Application	Test Locations/Degree of Field	Target Size	Sensitivity (%) (Ref No. as Superscript)	Specificity (%) (Ref No. as Superscript)
Visual Field Easy (VFE)	96; Central 30 degrees	Size V	77.8 (mild glaucoma)	52.6 (mild glaucoma)
			67^Citation12	77^Citation13
Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF)	66; 34° horizontal X 25° vertically	40% larger than Goldman Size II	88.4	81 (moderate glaucoma)
			60.9 (moderate to severe glaucoma)^Citation20	86.5 (moderate to severe glaucoma)^Citation20
Peristat Online Perimetry (POP)	24° horizontally X 20° vertically	3 mm in diameter	54–59 (mild glaucoma)^Citation24	85–94^Citation24
			71–86 (moderate to severe glaucoma)^Citation24
Visual Fields Fast (VFF)	Entire 24° visual field	Size (pixels/px): 2 × 2 (smallest), 4 × 4, 8 × 8, 16 × 16, 32 × 32 (largest)	91.2 (moderate to severe glaucoma)^Citation25	–
Eyecatcher	24–2 grid; 22 paracentral locations	Size III	97^Citation28	100^Citation28

Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Sahi RK, Kumar S. Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey visual field analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(1):87–91. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1847_19

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kitayama K, Young AG, Ochoa A 3rd, Yu F, Wong KY, Coleman AL. The agreement between an iPad visual field app and Humphrey frequency doubling technology in visual field screening at health fairs. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(9):846–850. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001902

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prince J, Thompson A, Mwanza JC, Tolleson-Rinehart S, Budenz DL. Glaucoma screening using an iPad-based visual field test in a West African Population. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2021;5(3):275–283. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2021.09.002

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lowry EA, Hou J, Hennein L, et al. Comparison of peristat online perimetry with the Humphrey perimetry in a clinic-based setting. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2016;5(4):4. doi:10.1167/tvst.5.4.4

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ding J, Tecson IC, Ang BCH, Chiew W, Chua C, Yip LWL. The performance of iPad-based noise-field perimeter versus Humphrey field analyser in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Eye. 2021;20:1–12.

 Google Scholar

Jones PR, Lindfield D, Crabb DP. Using an open-source tablet perimeter (Eyecatcher) as a rapid triage measure for glaucoma clinic waiting areas. Brit J Ophthalmol. 2021;105:681–686. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316018

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar