Finite-time stability of the West Nile Virus model with Brownian motion.

Glaucoma remains one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness worldwide, affecting an estimated 80 million people by 2040 []. Early detection and consistent monitoring of visual-field (VF) loss are essential to prevent progression and preserve functional vision. The current reference standard, standard automated perimetry (SAP) using devices such as the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), offers validated, quantitative assessment of visual function but is resource-intensive, time-consuming, and often inaccessible in low-resource or remote settings [, ]. Consequently, many patients are diagnosed late or remain unscreened, contributing to preventable vision loss and widening global inequities []. Recent advances in portable and digital perimetry have attempted to overcome these barriers through virtual-reality (VR), tablet-based, web-based, and paper-based platforms capable of administering perimetry outside traditional clinics [–]. These technologies promise cost-effective, scalable, and patient-centered solutions that can support tele-glaucoma screening and home monitoring. Early validation studies have reported encouraging diagnostic accuracy and high patient acceptability; however, the literature remains heterogeneous, with small sample sizes, inconsistent reference standards, and limited external validation [–]. Reported sensitivities and specificities range widely—from 60% to 100%—depending on device type, glaucoma severity, and testing conditions [, ]. Such variability, combined with disparate analytic metrics (e.g., mean deviation [MD], pattern standard deviation [PSD], area under the ROC curve), impedes direct comparison and evidence synthesis across devices. Visual-field testing detects functional loss and is most relevant once glaucoma has produced manifest visual-field defects. It should not be interpreted as a stand-alone diagnostic test for glaucoma, particularly in early or pre-perimetric disease. Clinical diagnosis requires integration with optic nerve assessment, intraocular pressure, structural imaging such as optical coherence tomography, and fundus or optic-disc imaging. To date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has systematically compared the diagnostic accuracy, test duration, and reliability of portable visual-field devices relative to SAP using standardized quantitative models. Clarifying these parameters is critical for guiding clinical adoption, policy recommendations, and regulatory validation.