Seeing Opportunity in Virtual Reality: A Rapid Review of the Use of VR as a Tool in Vision Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Virtual reality (VR) technologies have shown significant potential for diagnosing and treating vision-related impairments: This rapid review evaluates and characterizes the existing literature on VR technologies for diagnosing and treating vision-based diseases. Methods A systematic search was conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid). Abstracts were screened using Rayyan QCRI, followed by full-text screening and data extraction. Eligible studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, written in English, focused on human participants, used immersive and portable VR devices as the primary intervention, and reported on the clinical effectiveness of VR for therapeutic, diagnostic, or screening purposes for vision or auditory-visual impairments. Various study characteristics, including design and participant details, were extracted, and the MMAT assessment tool was used to evaluate study quality. Results Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these, sixty-four (84.2%) were non-randomized studies exploring VR’s effectiveness, while twenty-two (15.8%) were randomized-controlled trials. Of the included studies, 38.2% focused on diagnosing, 21.0% on screening, and 38.2% on treating vision impairments. Glaucoma and amblyopia were the most commonly studied visual impairments. Conclusion The use of standalone, remotely controlled VR headsets for screening and diagnosing visual diseases represents a promising advancement in ophthalmology. With ongoing technological developments, VR has the potential to revolutionize eye care by improving accessibility, efficiency, and personalization. Continued research and innovation in VR applications for vision care are expected to further enhance patient outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023456214.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".