In health care, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have been applied extensively for many purposes. Similar to other technologies such as telemedicine and artificial intelligence, VR and AR may improve clinical diagnosis and screening services in ophthalmology by alleviating current problems, including workforce shortage, diagnostic error, and underdiagnosis. In the past decade a number of studies and products have used VR and AR concepts to build clinical tests for ophthalmology, but comprehensive reviews on these studies are limited. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review on the use of VR and AR as a diagnostic and screening tool in ophthalmology. We identified 26 studies that implemented a variety of VR and AR tests on different conditions, including VR cover tests for binocular vision disorder, VR perimetry for glaucoma, and AR slit lamp biomicroscopy for retinal diseases. In general, while VR and AR tools can become standardized, automated, and cost-effective tests with good user experience, several weaknesses, including unsatisfactory accuracy, weak validation, and hardware limitations, have prevented these VR and AR tools from having wider clinical application. Also, a comparison between VR and AR is made to explain why studies have predominantly used VR rather than AR.

Some discrepancies have been observed in the diagnostic efficacy of multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) when evaluating visual field defects in glaucoma patients. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic precision of the mfVEP in glaucoma to find its best diagnostic indicator. A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies published up to 1 April 2021 was performed. The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed. Publication bias analysis and heterogeneity tests were performed. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the summary of receiver operating characteristics curve. Six studies with a total of 241 patients were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The AUC was 0.98. There was no evidence of publication bias or threshold effect. The pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of the mfVEP amplitude for detection of visual field defects in all studies was 0.93 and 0.89, respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of mfVEP amplitude were 6.56 and 0.08, respectively. The amplitude of mfVEP showed a good diagnostic precision in the prediction of visual field defects. Interocular mfVEP amplitude analysis can be a good diagnostic indicator for visual field study.

X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) accounts for a significant proportion of certifiable blindness in working-age adults. The objectives of this study were to: (1) synthesize the best available evidence regarding the natural history of disease progression and (2) identify the best current clinical biomarkers for monitoring disease progression, which will be important in planned gene therapy trials for this condition. Patient population: XLRP affected males. Main outcomes: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken with data sought on overall annual progression for clinical biomarkers using optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), visual acuity, electroretinography and visual fields. To assess which outcome was best for monitoring progression, data on reliability, interocular correlation and structure-function correlation were extracted. A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies estimated progression at between 4% to 19% per year with longitudinal data. Where an overall model was produced with cross-sectional data, the trend was usually best fit by a logarithmic function with an annual exponential decline rate between 4.7% and 8.0%. The evidence suggested the ellipsoid zone (EZ) width on OCT and outer ring area (ORA) on FAF as the most useful biomarkers having excellent interocular symmetry, reproducibility and functional correlation. Using different clinical biomarkers, XLRP progresses at a rate of 4 to 19% per year. Ellipsoid zone (EZ) width and ORA are the most robust biomarkers with the potential to be used in trials where one eye serves as a control for the other.

BACKGROUND: Visual field loss occurs frequently in neurological conditions and perimetry is commonly requested for patients with suspected or known conditions. There are currently no guidelines for how visual fields in neurological conditions should be assessed. There is a wide range of visual field programs available and the wrong choice of program can potentially fail to detect visual field loss. We report the results of a systematic review of the existing evidence base for the patterns of visual field loss in four common neurological conditions and the perimetry programs used, to aid the design of future research and clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed. The inclusion criteria required studies testing and/or reporting visual field loss in one or more of the target conditions; idiopathic intracranial hypertension, optic neuropathy, chiasmal compression and stroke. Scholarly online databases and registers were searched. In addition articles were hand searched. MESH terms and alternatives in relation to the four target conditions and visual fields were used. Study selection was performed by two authors independently. Data was extracted by one author and verified by a second.
RESULTS: This review included 330 studies; 51 in relation to idiopathic intracranial hypertension, 144 in relation to optic neuropathy, 105 in relation to chiasmal compression, 21 in relation to stroke and 10 in relation to a mixed neuro-ophthalmology population.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the 30-2 and 24-2 program using the Humphrey perimeter were most commonly reported followed by manual kinetic perimetry using the Goldmann perimeter across all four conditions included in this review. A wide variety of other perimeters and programs were reported. The patterns of visual field defects differ much more greatly across the four conditions. Central perimetry is used extensively in neurological conditions but with little supporting evidence for its diagnostic accuracy in these, especially considering the peripheral visual field may be affected first whilst the central visual field may not be impacted until later in the progression. Further research is required to reach a consensus on how best to standardise perimetry for neurological conditions.

The region of far peripheral vision, beyond 60 degrees of visual angle, is important to the evaluation of peripheral dark shadows (negative dysphotopsia) seen by some intraocular lens (IOL) patients. Theoretical calculations show that the limited diameter of an IOL affects ray paths at large angles, leading to a dimming of the main image for small pupils, and to peripheral illumination by light bypassing the IOL for larger pupils. These effects are rarely bothersome, and cataract surgery is highly successful, but there is a need to improve the characterization of far peripheral vision, for both pseudophakic and phakic eyes. Perimetry is the main quantitative test, but the purpose is to evaluate pathologies rather than characterize vision (and object and image regions are no longer uniquely related in the pseudophakic eye). The maximum visual angle is approximately 1050, but there is limited information about variations with age, race, or refractive error (in case there is an unexpected link with the development of myopia), or about how clear cornea, iris location, and the limiting retina are related. Also, the detection of peripheral motion is widely recognized to be important, yet rarely evaluated. Overall, people rarely complain specifically about this visual region, but with \"normal\" vision including an IOL for >5% of people, and increasing interest in virtual reality and augmented reality, there are new reasons to characterize peripheral vision more completely.