For a study, researchers sought to test for contrasts in dependability and execution boundaries of patients taking visual field (VF) parameters while utilizing a far-off, quiet observing framework to simultaneously manage 1 or 2 test meetings. In a planned interventional case series, 861 eyes of 474 successive patients going through a computerized perimeter for 6 months were checked during the test utilizing a sound/video-empowered remote observing framework. About 2 patients were all the while tried (synchronous test) by a solitary specialist if they were prepared for testing simultaneously. Patients were generally tried independently (single test). Execution and dependability boundaries, including misleading negatives, bogus up-sides, obsession misfortunes, mean deviation, design standard deviation, VF list, and test term, were thought about between patients going through concurrent and single tests. VFs were examined independently for 2 test procedures: SITA Standard 24-2 and SITA Faster 24-2C. No huge boundary contrasts were seen among SITA Standard 24-2 VFs among single and synchronous tests, except for obsession misfortunes (single: 16.8±19.7%, concurrent: 22.5±25.0%, P=0.01). Essentially, there were no massive contrasts seen among SITA Faster 24-2C tests. Matched investigations contrasting remotely observed VFs and earlier customarily checked VFs showed no huge contrasts for any boundaries, aside from fewer obsession misfortunes with remote observing (conventional: 23.6±27.5%, remote 17.7±20.8%, P=0.003). Through remote comprehension testing for VF, medical professionals could direct the testing of 2 patients concurrently while maintaining safeguarded execution and consistent quality.
