Our Virtual Eye device can help you increase practice efficiency with:
- Test modalities, reporting accuracy, and repeatability comparable to standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests1,2
- Audio instructions that replace the need for monitoring
- Portable, comfortable testing in any location
256-bit
Encryption
Patient records are secured for HIPAA & BAA compliance.
Cloud-based
Software
Conduct and review tests anywhere, on any device, with a Wi-Fi connection.
Recognizable Reporting
Examination records can be printed or downloaded and saved to your EMR system.
Easily
Sanitized
Synthetic leather facial cushion can be quickly disinfected between patients.
In clinical trials, our Virtual Eye device:
- Showed a mean sensitivity comparable to SAP (p<0.0001) for accurate assessment of the visual field1
- Experienced 26% shorter test times on average than traditional SAP3
- Exhibited reliable agreement with SAP in eyelid function for ptosis evaluation4
Normative patient database collected from over 450 Bascom Palmer patients
Reports that Mirror the Gold Standard
Visual Field Tests
- Test Patterns:
- 5-2, 10-2, 24-2, 24-2C, 30-2
- Full Field 120
- Superior 64 & 36 (Ptosis)
- Esterman
- Color Sensitivity
- Thresholding Strategy:
Full Threshold, Standard, Fast, Suprathreshold, Screening - Stimulus Size: III, V (I-VI)
Visual Field Reports
- Progression Analysis
- Raw Threshold Values
- Glaucoma Hemifield Test, Mean Deviation, Pattern Standard Deviation, Visual Field Index
- Reliability Indices:
- False Positives
- False Negatives
- Fixation Losses
How it works
Contact us
- Munshi H, Da Silva K, Savatovsky E, Bitrian E, Grajewski AL. Preliminary Retrospective Validation of a Novel Virtual Reality Visual Field Standard Testing Algorithm, as Compared to Standard Automated Perimetry. Ophthalmology. – Submitted.
- Patel A, Lee W, Munshi H, Chang TCP, Grajewski A, Tse D, Tse B. Comparison of Virtual Reality Device vs. Standard Automated Perimetry in the Assessment of Superior Visual Field Prior to Functional Upper Eyelid Surgery. ARVO Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. May 1st – 4th, 2022.
- McLaughlin D, Munshi H, Grossman A, Grajewski AL. Value-Cost Analysis and Comparison: Standard Automated Perimetry vs. Head-Mounted Perimetry. 32nd AGS Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN. March 3-6, 2022.
- Patel A, Lee W, Munshi H, Chang TCP, Grajewski A, Tse D, Tse B. Comparison of Virtual Reality Device vs. Standard Automated Perimetry in the Assessment of Superior Visual Field Prior to Functional Upper Eyelid Surgery. ARVO Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. May 1st – 4th, 2022.
