Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and evaluation of Order of Magnitude (OM): a virtual reality-based visual field analyzer for glaucoma detection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study introduces the Order of Magnitude (OM), a cost-effective, indigenous, virtual reality-based visual field analyzer designed for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.

Methods

The OM test employs a two-step supra-thresholding algorithm utilizing stimuli of 0.43°diameter (equivalent to Goldmann size III) at low and high thresholds. A comparative analysis was conducted against the Humphrey visual field (HVF) test, considered the gold standard in clinical practice. Participants, including those with glaucoma and normal individuals, underwent comprehensive eye examinations alongside the OM and HVF tests between April and October 2019. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the OM test were assessed against clinical diagnoses made by specialists.

Results

We studied 157 eyes (74 glaucomatous, 83 control) of 152 participants. Results demonstrated a high level of reliability for both OM and HVF tests, with no significant difference observed (P = 0.19, Chi-square test). The sensitivity and specificity of the OM test were found to be 93% (95% CI 86–100%) and 83% (95% CI 72.4–93%), respectively, while the HVF test showed sensitivity and specificity of 98% (95% CI 93.9–100%) and 83% (95% CI 73.9–92.8%), respectively.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that the OM test is non-inferior to the reference standard HVF test in identifying glaucomatous visual field loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Bourne RR, Taylor HR, Flaxman SR et al (2016) Number of people blind or visually impaired by glaucoma worldwide and in world regions 1990–2010: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11:e0162229

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M et al (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121:48–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA (2014) The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 311:1901–1911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Grødum K, Heijl A, Bengtsson B (2002) A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 80:627–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burr JM, Campbell MK, Campbell SE et al (2011) Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Broadway DC (2012) Visual field testing for glaucoma—a practical guide. Community Eye Health 25:66

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. De Souza N, Cui Y, Looi S et al (2012) The role of optometrists in India: an integral part of an eye health team. Indian J Ophthalmol 60:401

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Heijl A, Krakau C (1975) An automatic static perimeter, design and pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol 53:293–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hernández RA, Burr JM, Vale LD (2008) Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Daka Q, Mustafa R, Neziri B, Virgili G, Azuara-Blanco A (2022) Home-based perimetry for glaucoma: Where are we now? J Glaucoma 31:361–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR (1993) Clinical decisions in glaucoma. Mosby Incorporated

  12. Liu X (2012) Classification accuracy and cut point selection. Stat Med 31:2676–2686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Casson RJ, Chidlow G, Wood JP, Crowston JG, Goldberg I (2012) Definition of glaucoma: clinical and experimental concepts. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 40:341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stapelfeldt J, Kucur ŞS, Huber N, Höhn R, Sznitman R (2021) Virtual reality–based and conventional visual field examination comparison in healthy and glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol 10:10–10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P et al (2020) Validation of a head-mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma 29:86–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shetty V, Sankhe P, Haldipurkar SS et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of the PalmScan VF2000 virtual reality visual field analyzer for identification and classification of glaucoma. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 17(1):33

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pradhan ZS, Sircar T, Agrawal H et al (2021) Comparison of the performance of a novel, smartphone-based, head-mounted perimeter (GearVision) with the humphrey field analyzer. J Glaucoma 30:e146–e152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A et al (2017) Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1431–1443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pierre-Filho PdT, Gomes P, Pierre E, Pierre L (2010) Learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using Humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry. Eye 24(5):851–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tiwari US, Aishwarya A, Bhale A (2018) Influence of learning effect on reliability parameters and global indices of standard automated perimetry in cases of primary open angle glaucoma. Roman J Ophthalmol 62:277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V et al (1997) Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology 104:1126–1130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montolio FGJ, Wesselink C, Gordijn M, Jansonius NM (2012) Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:7010–7017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan NY, Tham Y-C, Koh V et al (2018) The effect of testing reliability on visual field sensitivity in normal eyes: the Singapore Chinese eye study. Ophthalmology 125:15–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yohannan J, Wang J, Brown J et al (2017) Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology 124:1612–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Okeh U, Okoro C (2012) Evaluating measures of indicators of diagnostic test performance: fundamental meanings and formulars. J Biom Biostat 3:2

    Google Scholar 

  26. Klewin KM, Radius RL (1986) Background illumination and automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 104:395–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vesti E (2003) Essential perimetry. The field analyzer primer. In: Wiley Online Library

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ganesh Babu Jonnadula at the Image Reading Centre of L V Prasad Eye Institute for grading the HVF test results for the presence of glaucomatous field loss.

Funding

Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Juhi Baskar and Nikhil S. Choudhari are joint first authors of this manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Innovation, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India

    Juhi Baskar & Mir Amir Ali

  2. VST Centre for Glaucoma Care, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Dr. Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, L V Prasad Marg, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, 500 034, India

    Nikhil S. Choudhari & Sirisha Senthil

Authors
  1. Juhi Baskar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mir Amir Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikhil S. Choudhari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sirisha Senthil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AA and JB contributed in design, data collection, acquisition NC and SS in design, drafting the manuscript and critically reviewing it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sirisha Senthil.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 46 KB)

Supplementary file2 (MP4 27619 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baskar, J., Ali, M.A., Choudhari, N.S. et al. Development and evaluation of Order of Magnitude (OM): a virtual reality-based visual field analyzer for glaucoma detection. Int Ophthalmol 44, 186 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03140-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03140-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation