Abstract
Purpose To assess accuracy and adherence of visual field (VF) home-monitoring in a pilot sample of glaucoma patients.
Design Prospective longitudinal observation.
Methods Twenty adults (median 71 years) with an established diagnosis of glaucoma were issued a tablet-perimeter (Eyecatcher), and were asked to perform one VF home-assessment per eye, per month, for 6 months (12 tests total). Before and after home-monitoring, two VF assessments were performed in-clinic using Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP; 4 tests total, per eye).
Results All 20 participants could perform monthly home-monitoring, though one participant stopped after 4 months (Adherence: 98%). There was good concordance between VFs measured at home and in the clinic (r = 0.94, P < 0.001). In 21 of 236 tests (9%) Mean Deviation deviated by more than ±3dB from the median. Many of these anomalous tests could be identified by applying machine learning techniques to recordings from the tablets’ front-facing camera (Area Under the ROC Curve = 0.78). Adding home-monitoring data to 2 SAP tests made 6 months apart reduced measurement error (between-test measurement variability) in 97% of eyes, with mean absolute error more than halving in 90% of eyes. Median test duration was 4.5mins (Quartiles: 3.9−5.2mins). Substantial variations in ambient illumination had no observable effect on VF measurements (r = 0.07, P = 0.320).
Conclusions Home-monitoring of VFs is viable for some patients, and may provide clinically useful data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by a Fight for Sight (UK) project grant (#1854/1855) and by the International Glaucoma Association/College of Optometrists 2019 Award (which is funded by the IGA and administered by the IGA in conjunction with the College of Optometrists). Author DA was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 675033. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for the School of Health Sciences, City, University of London (#ETH1819-0532), and carried out in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available upon request.
