| Title |
Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s131160 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stylianos Tsapakis, Dimitrios Papaconstantinou, Andreas Diagourtas, Konstantinos Droutsas, Konstantinos Andreanos, Marilita M Moschos, Dimitrios Brouzas |
| Abstract |
To present a visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses and evaluate the reliability of the method by comparing the results with those of the Humphrey perimeter. Virtual reality glasses, a smartphone with a 6 inch display, and software that implements a fast-threshold 3 dB step staircase algorithm for the central 24° of visual field (52 points) were used to test 20 eyes of 10 patients, who were tested in a random and consecutive order as they appeared in our glaucoma department. The results were compared with those obtained from the same patients using the Humphrey perimeter. High correlation coefficient (r=0.808, P<0.0001) was found between the virtual reality visual field test and the Humphrey perimeter visual field. Visual field examination results using virtual reality glasses have a high correlation with the Humphrey perimeter allowing the method to be suitable for probable clinical use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 36 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 12% |
| Engineering | 9 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 42 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2021.
All research outputs
#3,622,544
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#289
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,681
of 328,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.