Article title: Agreement Between Virtual Reality Perimetry and Static Automated Perimetry in Various Neuro-Ophthalmological Conditions: A Pilot Study
Authors: Badakere, A., Ali Mir, A., Negi, R., Kulkarni, S., Kekunnaya, R., and Sachdeva, V.
Journal: Neuro-Ophthalmology
Bibliometrics: Volume 47, Number 5-6, pages 255-261
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01658107.2023.2255651
The article originally published with an error in Table 4. The SAP versus VRP listing for Homonymous hemianopia/quadrantanopia is now listed as 90.8%.
The correct version of Table 4 appears below.
Table 4.
Distribution of per cent agreement for visual field defects between standard automated perimetry (SAP) and virtual reality perimetry (VRP), between two examiners on SAP, and between two examiners on VRP.
| Type of visual field defect | SAP versus VRP | SAP E1 versus E2 | VRP E1 versus E2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bitemporal hemianopia | 93.8% | 95% | 92.3% |
| Homonymous hemianopia/quadrantanopia | 90.8% | 92.8% | 82% |
| Inferior/superior altitudinal visual field defect | 79.4% | 91% | 83% |
| Generalised visual field defet | 86.4% | 92% | 76.4% |
| Central/centrocaecal scotoma | 60% | 83.3% | 50% |
| Enlarged blind spot | 38% | 75% | 33% |
| Normal | 54% | 87% | 30% |
E1 = examiner 1; E2 = examiner 2; SAP = standard automated perimetry; VRP = virtual reality perimetry.