Product
Clinical evidence
SONDA processes oculomotor behaviour data to obtain clinically relevant metrics. It is for use by healthcare professionals for the detection of visual function loss as an aid in the diagnosis and staging of primary open-angle glaucoma.
CE-marked as Class IIa under MDR 2017/745.
At a glance
97%
Global AUC
86%
Accuracy, early POAG
96%
Accuracy, moderate POAG
96%
Accuracy, late POAG
r = 0.78
Correlation with Zeiss HFA
2
Independent clinical investigations on glaucoma
Clinical investigation registrations: NL84477.042.23 · NL70382.042.20
Diagnostic accuracy
High accuracy across all glaucoma stages.
Pivotal diagnostic-accuracy study: 100 glaucoma patients, 100 age-matched controls, University Medical Center Groningen. Neon is the eye-tracker supplied with SONDA Hub; EyeLink is an independent third-party tracker used to verify consistency across sensors.
| Metric | Glaucoma stage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Early | Moderate | Late | |
| AUC | 0.92 | 0.99 | 1.00 |
| Accuracy | 86% | 96% | 96% |
| Sensitivity | 63% | 97% | 100% |
| Specificity | 95% | 95% | 95% |
Sensitivity is reported at a fixed 95% specificity operating point, held constant across stages.
Clinical validity
Different physics, shared conclusions.
SONDA assesses visual function objectively, without relying on patient compliance or manual feedback that standard automated perimetry requires. Its output correlates linearly with HFA mean sensitivity across the full severity range, despite an entirely different physical principle, tracking the degree and location of loss rather than only its presence.
SONDA vs Zeiss HFA
On the right: examples of visual field maps of different POAG severity, measured with Zeiss HFA and the corresponding maps by SONDA. This visualization is for illustrative purposes only, and it is currently available only for selected users.
Zeiss HFA vs SONDA visual field maps
Repeatability & usability
Reliable results, comfortable for patients.
Repeatability
- Baseline visit: 0.72 ± 0.22
- One-week retest: 0.73 ± 0.23
The SONDA Score barely changed after a week: 0.72 at baseline versus 0.73 on retest, not a significant difference (p = 0.423). Standard automated perimetry often needs a discarded first test before results are trustworthy; SONDA is reliable from the first session, with no extra visit to schedule.
Test-retest reliability study, registration NL70382.042.20: SONDA Score compared between a baseline visit and a retest one week later.
Patient experience
- Ease of performing the test: SONDA 9, Standard automated perimetry 7.3
- Lack of tiredness: SONDA 9, Standard automated perimetry 6
Patients rated SONDA easier to perform (9.0 vs. 7.3) and less tiring (9.0 vs. 6.0) than standard automated perimetry, both differences significant (p < 0.001). A test patients don't dread means fewer refusals and less staff time reassuring them through the exam.
Publications
Validation beyond glaucoma.
SONDA is CE-marked as an aid in the diagnosis and staging of glaucoma. Beyond that cleared use, ongoing research is exploring its potential as a fast, objective tool for broader neurovisual assessment.
Explore all publications