Premium
Clinical validation trial of Glaucoma Easy Screener (GES) as a low‐cost and portable visual field screening tool
Author(s) -
Nida Esmael Kedir,
Vandewalle Evelien,
Van Keer Karel,
Vanden Abeele Vero,
Geurts Luc
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2019.5226
Subject(s) - octopus (software) , perimeter , visual field , blind spot , glaucoma , medicine , fixation (population genetics) , optometry , ophthalmology , test (biology) , computer science , audiology , artificial intelligence , mathematics , population , physics , geometry , environmental health , quantum mechanics , paleontology , biology
Purpose The aim of this study is to compare the performance of Glaucoma Easy Screener (GES), as a low cost and portable visual field screening tool to the glaucoma screening test (GST) from Octopus. Methods GES is comprised of a Moto G5 smartphone, Homido v1 virtual reality headset and a gaming joystick for user input. The screening app’s design is based on the recently introduced Octopus GST perimeter. The test contains 28 points in the central 30 0 . Test stimuli at each location are presented at an intensity level that can be detected in 95% of the time in case of a normal visual field. The app monitors false positive errors with catch trials and fixation losses using the blind spot method. Test result is presented with a plot of seen and missed points along with other parameters including test duration and reliability indices. A normative database for the GES was constructed by testing 62 eyes of 33 normal subjects (aged 22–56, 10 male/23 female) using a threshold procedure. To evaluate agreement between Octopus GST and GES, 36 eyes of 18 subjects (among the 33 normal subjects) were tested both with GES and Octopus GST. Results There is a good level of agreement between Octopus GST and GES, with 31 eyes(86%) showing above 85% agreement, based on the count of seen and missed points. There was above 85% agreement for 24 points in all eyes. The remaining 4 points had an agreement between 78 and 85%. Test duration was slightly higher for GES with an average of 2 min per eye compared to 1.1 min with Octopus GST. Conclusions Results from this clinical trial show a good level of agreement between GES and Octopus GST. GES can serve as a low‐cost and portable visual field screening kit to complement other glaucoma tests, to make referral decisions in situations where standard equipment is not available.