Search

Aims: We compared feasibility, quality and outcomes of visual field (VF) testing in children with neuro-ophthalmic disease between the discontinued 'gold-standard' Goldmann and Octopus perimeters., Methods: Children with neuro-ophthalmic disease, attending Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, were assessed using standardised protocols by one examiner in a single sitting, using Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimetry. Outputs were classified to compare severity of loss and defect type. Test quality was assessed using both qualitative and quantitative methods., Results: Thirty children (40% female) aged 5-15 years participated. Goldmann perimetry was completed in full by 90.0% vs 72.4% for Octopus. Inability to plot the blind spot was the most common reason for not completing testing. Over 75% completed a test in ≤20 min. Duration was similar between perimeters (paired t-test, mean difference: 0.48min (-1.2, 2.2), p=0.559). The lowest quality tests were for Octopus perimetry in children <8 years, without significant differences between perimeters in older children (McNemar's test, χ 2 =1.0, p=0.317). There was broad agreement between Goldmann and Octopus outputs (good quality, n=21, Bland-Altman, mean difference for isopters I4e (-514.3 deg 2 (-817.4, -211.2), p=0.814), I2e (-575.5 deg 2 (-900.1, -250.9), p=0.450) and blind spot (20.8 deg 2 (5.7, 35.8), p=0.451)). However, VF severity grades and defect type matched in only 57% and 69% of tests, respectively. Octopus perimetry underestimated severe VF defects., Conclusions: Informative perimetry is feasible in children ≥8 years with neuro-ophthalmic conditions, with either Goldmann or Octopus perimeters. However, meaningful differences exist between the two approaches with implications for consistency in longitudinal assessments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: There is limited evidence to support the development of guidance for visual field testing in children with glaucoma., Objective: To compare different static and combined static/kinetic perimetry approaches in children with glaucoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, observational study recruiting children prospectively between May 2013 and June 2015 at 2 tertiary specialist pediatric ophthalmology centers in London, England (Moorfields Eye Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital). The study included 65 children aged 5 to 15 years with glaucoma (108 affected eyes)., Main Outcomes and Measures: A comparison of test quality and outcomes for static and combined static/kinetic techniques, with respect to ability to quantify glaucomatous loss. Children performed perimetric assessments using Humphrey static (Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm 24-2 FAST) and Octopus combined static tendency-oriented perimetry/kinetic perimetry (isopter V4e, III4e, or I4e) in a single sitting, using standardized clinical protocols, administered by a single examiner. Information was collected about test duration, completion, and quality (using automated reliability indices and our qualitative Examiner-Based Assessment of Reliability score). Perimetry outputs were scored using the Aulhorn and Karmeyer classification. One affected eye in 19 participants was retested with Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm 24-2 FAST and 24-2 standard algorithms., Results: Sixty-five children (33 girls [50.8%]), with a median age of 12 years (interquartile range, 9-14 years), were tested. Test quality (Examiner-Based Assessment of Reliability score) improved with increasing age for both Humphrey and Octopus strategies and were equivalent in children older than 10 years (McNemar test, χ2 = 0.33; P = .56), but better-quality tests with Humphrey perimetry were achieved in younger children (McNemar test, χ2 = 4.0; P = .05). Octopus and Humphrey static MD values worse than or equal to -6 dB showed disagreement (Bland-Altman, mean difference, -0.70; limit of agreement, -7.74 to 6.35) but were comparable when greater than this threshold (mean difference, -0.03; limit of agreement, -2.33 to 2.27). Visual field classification scores for static perimetry tests showed substantial agreement (linearly weighted κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93), although 25 of 80 (31%) were graded with a more severe defect for Octopus static perimetry. Of the 7 severe cases of visual field loss (grade 5), 5 had lower kinetic than static classification scores., Conclusions and Relevance: A simple static perimetry approach potentially yields high-quality results in children younger than 10 years. For children older than 10 years, without penalizing quality, the addition of kinetic perimetry enabled measurement of far-peripheral sensitivity, which is particularly useful in children with severe visual field restriction.

Introduction: Interpretation of perimetric findings, particularly in children, relies on accurate assessment of test reliability, yet no objective measures of reliability exist for kinetic perimetry. We developed the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM), a quantitative measure of perimetric test reproducibility/reliability and report here its feasibility and association with subjective assessment of reliability., Methods: Children aged 5-15 years, without an ophthalmic condition that affects the visual field, were recruited from Moorfields Eye Hospital and underwent Goldmann perimetry as part of a wider research programme on perimetry in children. Subjects were tested with two isopters and the blind spot was plotted, followed by a KPRM. Test reliability was also scored qualitatively using our examiner-based assessment of reliability (EBAR) scoring system, which standardises the conventional clinical approach to assessing test quality. The relationship between KPRM and EBAR was examined to explore the use of KPRM in assessing reliability of kinetic fields., Results: A total of 103 children (median age 8.9 years; IQR: 7.1 to 11.8 years) underwent Goldmann perimetry with KPRM and EBAR scoring. A KPRM was achieved by all children. KPRM values increased with reducing test quality (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.005), indicating greater test-retest variability, and reduced with age (linear regression, p=0.015). One of 103 children (0.97%) demonstrated discordance between EBAR and KPRM., Conclusion: KPRM and EBAR are distinct but complementary approaches. Though scores show excellent agreement, KPRM is able to quantify within-test variability, providing data not captured by subjective assessment. Thus, we suggest combining KPRM with EBAR to aid interpretation of kinetic perimetry test reliability in children., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Purpose: We sought to define normative visual field (VF) values for children using common clinical test protocols for kinetic and static perimetry., Design: Prospective, observational study., Subjects: We recruited 154 children aged 5 to 15 years without any ophthalmic condition that would affect the VF (controls) from pediatric clinics at Moorfields Eye Hospital., Methods: Children performed perimetric assessments in a randomized order using Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimetry, and Humphrey static perimetry (Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm [SITA] 24-2 FAST), in a single sitting, using standardized clinical protocols, with assessment by a single examiner. Unreliable results (assessed qualitatively) were excluded from the normative data analysis. Linear, piecewise, and quantile mixed-effects regression models were used. We developed a method to display age-specific normative isopters graphically on a VF plot to aid interpretation., Main Outcome Measures: Summary measures and graphical plots describing normative VF data for 3 common perimetric tests., Results: Visual field area increased with age on testing with Goldmann isopters III4e, I4e, and I2e (linear regression; P < 0.001) and for Octopus isopters III4e and I4e (linear regression; P < 0.005). Visual field development occurs predominately in the inferotemporal field. Humphrey mean deviation (MD) showed an increase of 0.3 decibels (dB; 95% CI, 0.21-0.40) MD per year up to 12 years of age, when adult MD values were reached and thereafter maintained., Conclusions: Visual field size and sensitivity increase with age in patterns that are specific to the perimetric approach used. These developmental changes should be accounted for when interpreting perimetric test results in children, particularly when monitoring change over time., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate feasibility, reliability and repeatability of perimetry in children., Methods: A prospective, observational study recruiting 154 children aged 5-15 years, without an ophthalmic condition that affects the visual field (controls), identified consecutively between May 2012 and November 2013 from hospital eye clinics. Perimetry was undertaken in a single sitting, with standardised protocols, in a randomised order using the Humphrey static (SITA 24-2 FAST), Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimeters. Data collected included test duration, subjective experience and test quality (incorporating examiner ratings on comprehension of instructions, fatigue, response to visual and auditory stimuli, concentration and co-operation) to assess feasibility and reliability. Testing was repeated within 6 months to assess repeatability., Results: Overall feasibility was very high (Goldmann=96.1%, Octopus=89% and Humphrey=100% completed the tests). Examiner rated reliability was 'good' in 125 (81.2%) children for Goldmann, 100 (64.9%) for Octopus and 98 (63.6%) for Humphrey perimetry. Goldmann perimetry was the most reliable method in children under 9 years of age. Reliability improved with increasing age (multinomial logistic regression (Goldmann, Octopus and Humphrey), p<0.001). No significant differences were found for any of the three test strategies when examining initial and follow-up data outputs (Bland-Altman plots, n=43), suggesting good test repeatability, although the sample size may preclude detection of a small learning effect., Conclusions: Feasibility and reliability of formal perimetry in children improves with age. By the age of 9 years, all the strategies used here were highly feasible and reliable. Clinical assessment of the visual field is achievable in children as young as 5 years, and should be considered where visual field loss is suspected. Since Goldmann perimetry is the most effective strategy in children aged 5-8 years and this perimeter is no longer available, further research is required on a suitable alternative for this age group.

Purpose: Visual fields are key functional outcome measures in children with a variety of ophthalmologic disorders. However, reliably assessing fields in children is challenging. We report the findings of a survey of current practices of perimetry in children in the United Kingdom and Ireland., Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent to Orthoptic Service Heads in July 2008. Respondents were asked for comments regarding visual field testing in children as well as details of the volume and type of perimetry performed in their units, over a 1-year period., Results: Of the 98 (62%) completed questionnaires, 16 departments reported not testing visual fields in children. In total 3675 subjects under 16 years of age were reported to have undergone perimetry in 1 year, most in units with a ≥ 50% pediatric caseload for orthoptics. A total of 42% of units used static perimetry alone, 11% kinetic, and 47% used a combination of both., Conclusion: High numbers of visual field tests are carried out in children in the UK and Ireland annually. Automated perimetry is used predominantly, despite the underlying algorithms having been developed for adult populations. Thus there is a clear need for more research, to ensure that evolving management practices are informed by understanding of the diagnostic accuracy and value of perimetry in children.