Development and Clinical Validation of GearVision - A Smartphone Based Head Mounted Perimeter

Sircar, Tushar; Pradhan, Zia S.; Bopardikar, Ajit S.; Rao, Harsha L.; Agrawal, Harshit; Tiwari, Vijay N.

doi:10.1109/indicon47234.2019.9030319

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of virtual reality 11 and tablet-based 12 approaches for VF testing have been considered over traditional perimetry for their social-distancing and disinfection benefits, and it is possible that these approaches will continue to improve and become more widely adopted in the future. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This study was designed to test the implementation of a remote patient monitoring system to reduce close proximity testing and increase capacity for simultaneous VF testing of multiple patients in separate rooms. Reliability and performance parameters were analyzed for differences under isolated (single test) and 2 patient, (simultaneous test) conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While such an approach before the pandemic may have proven advantageous from a cost and efficiency standpoint, placing multiple individuals in close quarters for VF testing could compromise patient safety. The use of virtual reality11 and tablet-based12 approaches for VF testing have been considered over traditional perimetry for their social-distancing and disinfection benefits, and it is possible that these approaches will continue to improve and become more widely adopted in the future 13–19…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Remote Video Monitoring of Simultaneous Visual Field Testing

Meshkin

Zhao

Elze

et al. 2022

Journal of Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Précis: In this prospective interventional case series that included 474 patients, there were no significant differences in visual field (VF) parameters between fields from patients tested one-at-a-time and simultaneously, except for fixation losses. Purpose: To test for differences in reliability and performance parameters of patients taking VF tests while using a remote patient monitoring system to supervise 1 or 2 test sessions simultaneously. Methods: In a prospective interventional case series, 861 eyes of 474 consecutive patients undergoing automated perimetry during a 6-month period were monitored during the test using an audio/video-enabled remote monitoring system. Two patients were simultaneously tested (simultaneous test) by a single technician if they were ready for testing at the same time. Patients were otherwise tested individually (single test). Performance and reliability parameters including false negatives, false positives, fixation losses, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, VF index, and test duration were compared between patients undergoing simultaneous tests and single tests. Patients undergoing remotely monitored testing, for whom a prior VF could be found, had performance and reliability parameters compared with those prior tests. VFs were analyzed separately for 2 test strategies: SITA Standard 24-2 and SITA Faster 24-2C. Results: No significant parameter differences were observed among SITA Standard 24-2 VFs between single and simultaneous tests, except for fixation losses (single: 16.8±19.7%, simultaneous: 22.5±25.0%, P=0.01). Similarly, there were no significant differences observed among SITA Faster 24-2C tests. Paired analyses comparing remotely monitored VFs with prior traditionally monitored VFs showed no significant differences for any parameters, except for fewer fixation losses with remote monitoring (traditional: 23.6±27.5%, remote 17.7±20.8%, P=0.003). Conclusions: Remote patient monitoring of VF testing enabled technicians to supervise testing of 2 patients simultaneously with preserved performance and reliability.

show abstract