Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research
ISSN: 2008-322X
The latest research in clinical ophthalmology and vision science
Diagnostic Performance of the PalmScan VF2000 Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for Identification and Classification of Glaucoma
Published date: Jan 21 2022
Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research
Issue title: January–March 2022, Volume 17, Issue 1
Pages: 33 - 41
Authors:
Abstract:
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic test properties of the Palm Scan VF2000® Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for diagnosis and classification of the severity of glaucoma.
Methods: This study was a prospective cross-sectional analysis of 166 eyes from 97 participants. All of them were examined by the Humphrey® Field Analyzer (used as the gold standard) and the Palm Scan VF 2000® Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer on the same day by the same examiner. We estimated the kappa statistic (including 95% confidence interval [CI]) as a measure of agreement between these two methods. The diagnostic test properties were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for the classification of individuals as glaucoma/non-glaucoma was 100%. The general agreement for the classification of glaucoma between these two instruments was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.56–0.78). The agreement for mild glaucoma was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61–0.92), for moderate glaucoma was 0.37 (0.14–0.60), and for severe glaucoma was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.55–0.85). About 28% of moderate glaucoma cases were misclassified as mild and 17% were misclassified as severe by the virtual reality visual field analyzer. Furthermore, 20% of severe cases were misclassified as moderate by this instrument.
Conclusion: The instrument is 100% sensitive and specific in detection of glaucoma. However, among patients with glaucoma, there is a relatively high proportion of misclassification of severity of glaucoma. Thus, although useful for screening of glaucoma, it cannot replace the Humphrey® Field Analyzer for the clinical management in its current form.
Keywords: Glaucoma, Sensitivity, Specificity, Test Properties, Virtual Reality Perimetry
References:
1. Cook C, Foster P. Epidemiology of glaucoma: what’s new? Can J Ophthalmol 2012;47:223–226.
2. World Health Organization. Blindness and vision impairment [Internet]. WHO; 2019 [cited 2020 February 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/ detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment.
3. George R, Ve RS, Vijaya L. Glaucoma in India: estimated burden of disease. J Glaucoma 2010;19:391–397.
4. Kulkarni U. Early detection of primary open angle glaucoma: Is it happening? J Clin Diagn Res 2012;6:667– 670.
5. Alencar LM, Medeiros FA. The role of standard automated perimetry and newer functional methods for glaucoma diagnosis and follow-up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2011;59:S53–S58.
6. Wroblewski D, Francis BA, Sadun A, Vakili G, Chopra V. Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:206082.
7. Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, Droutsas K, Andreanos K, Moschos MM, et al. Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:1431–1443.
8. 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;5:2.
9. Anderson DR, Drance SM, Schulzer M, Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Natural history of normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;108:247– 253.
10. Nayak B, Dharwadkar S. Interpretation of autoperimetry. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2014;2:31–59.
11. Hodapp E, Parrish RI, Anderson D. Clinical decisions in glaucoma. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1993.
12. Cioffi G. Glaucoma. Basic and clinical science course (Book 10). USA: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2011.
13. McManus JR, Netland PA. Screening for glaucoma: rationale and strategies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2013;24:144–149.
14. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 2012;22:276–282.
15. Brusini P. OCT Glaucoma Staging System: a new method for retinal nerve fiber layer damage classification using spectral-domain OCT. Eye 2018;32:113–119.
16. Mees L, Upadhyaya S, Kumar P, Kotawala S, Haran S, S Rajasekar, et al. Validation of a head mounted virtual reality visual field screening device. J Glaucoma 2020;29:86–91.
17. Wall M, Wild J. Perimetry Update 1998/1999: Repeatability of abnormality and progression in glaucomatous standard and SWAP visual fields. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting; 1998. Gardone Riveira (BS), Italy: Kugler Publications.
18. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50: 974–979.
19. Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, He M, Crowston JG, Gupta V. Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the humphrey field analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;190:9–16.
20. Schulz AM, Graham EC, You Y-Y, Klistorner A, Graham SL. Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;46:346–355.
21. Ianchulev T, Pham P, Makarov V, Francis B, Minckler D. Peristat: a computer-based perimetry self-test for costeffective population screening of glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 2005;30:1–6.
22. Lowry EA, Hou J, Hennein L, Chang RT, Lin S, J Keenan, et al. Comparison of peristat online perimetry with the humphrey perimetry in a clinic-based setting. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016;5:4.
15
Priya Narang, Fareya Fatheema Rasheed, Amar Agarwal, Rhea Narang, Ashvin Agarwal (2025)
Comparison of Elisar-Fast and Sita-Fast Strategies for Visual Field Assessment in Glaucoma, Journal of GlaucomaVolume: 34, Issue: 3, First Page: 198
10.1097/IJG.0000000000002505
I. L. Simakova, A. N. Kulikov, S. A. Serdiukova, K. S. Gorbacheva, L. A. Grigoryan (2023)
New possibilities of perimetry in screening and early diagnosis of glaucoma, National Journal glaucomaVolume: 22, Issue: 4, First Page: 33
10.53432/2078-4104-2023-22-4-33-43
Juhi Baskar, Mir Amir Ali, Nikhil S. Choudhari, Sirisha Senthil (2024)
Development and evaluation of Order of Magnitude (OM): a virtual reality-based visual field analyzer for glaucoma detection, International OphthalmologyVolume: 44, Issue: 1
10.1007/s10792-024-03140-7
Changseok Lee, Liam Redden, Vivian Eng, Brennan Eadie, Ryo Asaoka (2025)
Luminance and thresholding limitations of virtual reality headsets for visual field testing, PLOS OneVolume: 20, Issue: 9, First Page: e0332795
10.1371/journal.pone.0332795
Kae Sugihara, Yu X.G. Kong, Mitsuto Hosokawa, Toshio Okanouchi (2025)
Comparison of 30-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer, Journal of GlaucomaVolume: 34, Issue: 11, First Page: 970
10.1097/IJG.0000000000002625
Jesús Vera, Alan N. Glazier, Mark T. Dunbar, Douglas Ripkin, Masoud Nafey (2025)
Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Commercially Available Virtual Reality Headsets for Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review, VisionVolume: 9, Issue: 4, First Page: 80
10.3390/vision9040080
Mark Christopher, Shahin Hallaj, Anuwat Jiravarnsirikul, Sally L. Baxter, Linda M. Zangwill (2024)
Novel Technologies in Artificial Intelligence and Telemedicine for Glaucoma Screening, Journal of GlaucomaVolume: 33, Issue: 8S, First Page: S26
10.1097/IJG.0000000000002367
Cameron Ross McCaul Wilson, Andrew Blaikie, Baljean Dhillon, Ian Underwood (2025)
44‐3: Toward a Virtual‐Reality Diagnostic Suite for Cerebral Visual Impairment, SID Symposium Digest of Technical PapersVolume: 56, Issue: 1, First Page: 583
10.1002/sdtp.18228
Silvia Schrittenlocher, Vincent Lüke, Hanne Irle, Jithmi Weliwitage, Jan Niklas Lüke, Philip Enders, Esther Hoffmann, André Rosentreter, Jan Lübke, Sven Dinslage, Randolf A. Widder, George Kong, Algis J. Vingrys, Claus Cursiefen, Thomas S. Dietlein, Alexandra Lappas (2025)
Portable perimetry devices for glaucoma patients –practicality in daily clinical practice and glaucoma expert assessment, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
10.1007/s00417-025-07028-9
I. L. Simakova, L. A. Grigoryan, K. S. Gorbacheva (2023)
Modern possibilities of functional glaucoma screening (part 1), National Journal glaucomaVolume: 22, Issue: 4, First Page: 99
10.53432/2078-4104-2023-22-4-99-111
Wesam Shamseldin Shalaby, Sapna Sinha, Jonathan S. Myers, Reza Razeghinejad (2023)
Virtual Perimetry, Advances in Ophthalmology and OptometryVolume: 8, Issue: 1, First Page: 213
10.1016/j.yaoo.2023.03.008
Silvia Schrittenlocher, Vincent Lüke, Hanne Irle, Jithmi Weliwitage, Jan Niklas Lüke, George Kong, Algis J. Vingrys, Alexandra Lappas, Claus Cursiefen, Thomas S. Dietlein (2025)
Acceptance of Novel Perimetry Methods in Germany: Virtual Reality Perimetry and Tablet-based Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients, Klinische Monatsblätter für AugenheilkundeVolume: 242, Issue: 03, First Page: 219
10.1055/a-2511-4087
Owais M. Aftab, Yash S. Shah, Anup Dupaguntla, Tracy Andrews, Rashika Verma, Jasmine Mahajan, Priya Tailor, Rita Vought, Bernard C. Szirth, Albert S. Khouri, Miriam M. Habiel (2025)
Evaluating a virtual reality visual fields analyzer in an urban, underserved glaucoma & glaucoma suspect patient populations to identify disparities, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental OphthalmologyVolume: 263, Issue: 10, First Page: 2875
10.1007/s00417-025-06886-7
Sean K. Wang, Elaine M. Tran, William Yan, Reshma Kosaraju, Yang Sun, Robert T. Chang (2024)
Comparing a Head-Mounted Smartphone Visual Field Analyzer to Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma: A Prospective Study, Journal of GlaucomaVolume: 33, Issue: 10, First Page: 742
10.1097/IJG.0000000000002452
Adrian Babel, Mohamed Soumakieh, Allison Chen, Caroline Wong, Douglas R da Costa, David Almeida (2025)
Virtual Reality Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma: Benefits and Drawbacks, Clinical OphthalmologyVolume: Volume 19, First Page: 933
10.2147/OPTH.S511803
