Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy

References

• Kang JM, Tanna AP. Glaucoma. Med Clin North Am. 2021;105(3):493–510. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2021.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 4th ed. Savona, Italy: Publicomm; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Johnson CA, Weinreb RN. Current practice with standard automated perimetry. Semin Ophthalmol. 2000;15(4):172–181. doi:10.3109/08820530009037869
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(7):2006–2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra G, Flammer J. The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229(6):501–504. doi:10.1007/BF00203309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirakami T, Omura T, Fukuda H, Asaoka R, Tanito M. Real-world analysis of the aging effects on visual field reliability indices in humans. J Clin Med. 2021;10(24):5775. doi:10.3390/jcm10245775
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turpin A, Lawson DJ, McKendrick AM. PsyPad: a platform for visual psychophysics on the iPad. J Vis. 2014;14(3):16. doi:10.1167/14.3.16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vingrys AJ, Healey JK, Liew S, et al. Validation of a tablet as a tangent perimeter. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(4):3. doi:10.1167/tvst.5.4.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meditec CZ. Cleaning guidance for the Humphrey field analyzer. Available from: http://www.zeiss.com. Accessed January 28, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Diagnostics H-S. Cleaning and disinfection of octopus perimeters. Available from: http://www.haag-streit.com. Accessed January 28, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson CA, Thapa S, George Kong YX, Robin AL. Performance of an iPad application to detect moderate and advanced visual field loss in Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;182:147–154. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2017.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
• Appview Technologies. c2019. FAQ. Available from: https://www.appviewmrf.com/faq/. Accessed June 27, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz AM, Graham EC, You YY, 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 YXG. Visual field testing in the era of portable consumer technology. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(4):325–326. doi:10.1111/ceo.13308
   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
• Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, et al. Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the Humphrey field analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;190:9–16. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar H, Thulasidas M. Comparison of perimetric outcomes from Melbourne rapid fields tablet perimeter software and Humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020(8384509):1–9. doi:10.1155/2020/8384509
   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
• 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
• Prea SM, Kong G, Vingrys AJ. Visual field home-monitoring with a tablet perimeter by glaucoma patients.Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):4381–A0424.
   Google Scholar
• Ianchulev T, Pham P, Makarov V, Francis B, Minckler D. Peristat: a computer-based perimetry self-test for cost-effective population screening of glaucoma. Curr Eye Res. 2005;30(1):1–6. doi:10.1080/02713680490522399
   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. 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, 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
• 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
• 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
• Krishnadas R. Commentary: evolving role of portable visual field testing in communities. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(1):92–93. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_731_20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar