• Users Online: 60522
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 1018-1019

Response to comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population


1 Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India; Research Fellow, Department of Ocular Epidemiology, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore

Date of Web Publication16-Mar-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Parul Ichhpujani
Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_41_21

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Sahi RK, Kumar S. Response to comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:1018-9

How to cite this URL:
Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Sahi RK, Kumar S. Response to comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2024 Mar 29];69:1018-9. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ijo/pages/default.aspx/text.asp?2021/69/4/1018/311264



Dear Editor,

We thank the readers for their letter commenting on our manuscript.[1],[2] The study design is not a prospective cohort as understood by the reader. Careful inspection of scientific literature will show that prospective cross-sectional is a common term (PubMed-MEDLINE search shows 63,515 results[3]) that illustrates different aspects of study design, “prospective” indicates that the data were collected after the study was designed (direction), “cross-sectional” indicates a single frame of reference (time point) or how many times the data were collected, while “observational” indicates the type of intervention.[4]

We agree with the original STROBE guideline statement that authors of the guideline mention that 'manuscripts should not be “STROBEd”, in the sense of regulating style or terminology. We agree to the use of narrative elements, including the description of illustrative cases, to complement the essential information about their study, and to make their articles an interesting read.'[5],[6]

We thank the readers for pointing out the error in the description for [Figure 2] and apologize for the same. It should be read as SITA FAST.

Regarding the MRF, the application is only available on the iPad/iOS devices which is only around ¼ of the global mobile operating system market, although in the tablet segment the share is around ½.[7] The lite application (now available in multiple formats as MRF glaucoma/neural/macula/diabetes on the Apple store) offers limited functionality and costs around 600 USD (License fee: 270 USD, 100 Test pack: 330 USD).[8],[9] We believe, for a resource-limited setting in developing nations like a government hospital or a peripheral (semiurban/rural) primary or secondary care setup, these are significant costs especially with the recurring expenditure on the test packs. Despite the availability and affordability aspects of the paid application, if the results are as good as the traditional perimeters, it may be the game-changer that glaucoma management needs.

For the clarification on refractive correction, all subjects wore their prescription glasses for the VFE test. In addition, all subjects had best-corrected visual acuity better than or equal to 20/40 to undertake the VFE test. For the room illumination: LED light: 22 W, color temperature: 6500 K and lumens: 1900 Lm was used in the room without daylight to minimize glare. We agree that use of a tablet hood like the one provided with the new MRF app variant could improve the patient experience and test reliability.[9] We also agree with the suggestion that use of a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse would eliminate the need to clean the device again and again, thus test reliability and user experience would improve. We are using both the tablet hood and the Bluetooth keyboard with the MRF test.

These are exciting times for innovations in how glaucoma is diagnosed and managed across the world, especially during these COVID times. With new technology and concepts like tablet and VR perimetry, it is imperative that initial interest and buzz around them would lead to widespread adoption/adulation however it is important to highlight that robust comparison data with existing gold standards is vital before any of them replaces the trusted HVF in the glaucoma toolkit.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kumar H, Thulasidas M. Comments on: Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:1017-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Sahi RK, Kumar S. Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:87-91.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Prospective cross-sectional - Search Results - PubMed 2021 [updated 2021 Jan 04]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=prospective+cross-sectional&sort=date.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Recommendations for Naming Study Design. Available from: https://www.jospt.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1376598139872/StudyDesignandLevelsofEvidenceTable.pdf.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Schriger DL. Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: The role of narrative. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:437-43.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide | StatCounter Global Stats. 2021.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Glance Optical Pty Ltd Apps on the App Store 2021 [updated 2021 Jan 04]. Available from: https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/glance-optical-pty-ltd/id1087721651.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kumar H, Thulasidas M. Comparison of perimetric outcomes from melbourne rapid fields tablet perimeter software and humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. J Ophthalmol 2020;2020:8384509.  Back to cited text no. 9
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6474    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded71    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal