TY - JOUR
T1 - Remote Video Monitoring of Simultaneous Visual Field Testing
AU - Meshkin, Ryan S.
AU - Zhao, Yan
AU - Elze, Tobias
AU - Boland, Michael V.
AU - Friedman, David S.
N1 - Funding Information:
Sources of Support: a. Funding/Support: Tobias Elze, PhD received funding from NIH (NIH R21 EY030142, R21 EY030631, R01 EY030575, P30 EY003790) and BrightFocus Foundation. b. Financial Disclosures: David S. Friedman MD, PhD, MPH is a consultant for Gore (Neward, DE, USA), Bausch and Lomb (Rochester, NY, USA), Clearview (Newton, MA, USA), IDx (Coralville, IA, USA), and Thea (Clermont-Ferrand, France). Michael V. Boland has received lecture fees from Carl Zeiss Meditec. Ryan S Meshkin BS, Yan Zhao MS, and Tobias Elze PhD, declare no potential competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/7/1
Y1 - 2022/7/1
N2 - Précis: 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.
AB - Précis: 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.
KW - performance
KW - reliability
KW - remote video monitoring
KW - simultaneous
KW - visual field testing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129820241&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85129820241&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002045
DO - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002045
M3 - Article
C2 - 35763679
AN - SCOPUS:85129820241
SN - 1057-0829
VL - 31
SP - 488
EP - 493
JO - Journal of Glaucoma
JF - Journal of Glaucoma
IS - 7
ER -