Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Commercially Available Virtual Reality Headsets for Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) technology has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional perimetry for assessing visual fields. However, the clinical validity of commercially available VR-based perimetry devices remains uncertain due to variability in hardware, software, and testing protocols. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the validity of VR-based perimetry compared to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Literature searches were performed across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they assessed commercially available VR-based visual field devices in comparison to HFA and reported visual field outcomes. Devices were categorized by regulatory status (FDA, CE, or uncertified), and results were synthesized narratively. Nineteen studies were included. Devices such as Heru, Olleyes VisuALL, and the Advanced Vision Analyzer showed promising agreement with HFA metrics, especially in moderate to advanced glaucoma. However, variability in performance was observed depending on disease severity, population type, and device specifications. Limited dynamic range and lack of eye tracking were common limitations in lower-complexity devices. Pediatric validation and performance in early-stage disease were often suboptimal. Several VR-based perimetry systems demonstrate clinically acceptable validity compared to HFA, particularly in certain patient subgroups. However, broader validation, protocol standardization, and regulatory approval are essential for widespread clinical adoption. These devices may support more accessible visual field testing through telemedicine and decentralized care.