Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 6, 2025
Assessing Binocular Central Visual Field and Binocular Eye Movements in a Dichoptic Viewing Condition
Published on: July 21, 2020
Remote Video Monitoring of Simultaneous Visual Field Testing
Ryan S Meshkin1, Yan Zhao, Tobias Elze
1Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye & Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Prcis:
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.
