Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children

Wilscher, Stephanie; Wabbels, Bettina; Lorenz, Birgit

doi:10.1007/s00417-010-1342-9

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is controversy in the literature regarding developmental change in VF area. Wilscher et al 15 using automated kinetic perimetry found no significant change with age. This disagrees with studies using manual kinetic testing on the Goldmann perimeter 6,7,14 where a developmental increase in VF area has been reported.…”

Section: Normative Vf Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When examining their results further, mean sensitivity values are variable until 11-12 years. Safran et al, 28 also using the Octopus perimeter, used a static testing strategy on the central 15 , and found good reliability in 8-year-olds. They noted that a training programme improved results, especially in the younger children.…”

Section: Feasibility Of Testing Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one other study has examined automated kinetic perimetry from age 5 years, using the Twinfield perimeter. 15 Of 50 children tested, only 1 could not complete the test; however, reliability measures were not considered.…”

Section: Feasibility Of Testing Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have included practice stimuli for children prior to testing to ensure they understood the task. 3,15,26 SKP using the Octopus is becoming the test of choice by many clinical departments due to a more standardised method compared with the Goldmann perimeter 19 and good test-retest reliability. 18 Despite this, there are no normative published data of children's VF area, expected RTs, and blind spot size as a function of age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stimuli and velocities reported by Vonthein et al 13 are not UK standard clinical practice, and studies employing other kinetic perimeters have suggested that an age-dependent increase is expected within this age bracket. 14,15 Normative values using SKP on the Octopus for children 10 years and older is limited and younger than 10 years are unknown. Normative data for blind spot area using SKP are also not documented in children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

Bjerre

Codina

Griffiths

2014

Neuro-Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normative visual field area, feasibility and repeatability using (Octopus) semi-automated kinetic perimetry are reported in 221 healthy volunteers aged 5-22 years. I4e and I2e stimuli assessed the visual field at 5 /second ( /s) or 3 /s. Blind spot was assessed with I2e at 2 /s. Reliable visual fields were plotted in 23% of participants 510 years, 64% of 10-12-year-olds, and 98% aged 13-22 years. Visual field areas were unchanged with age using 5 /s, but increased using 3 /s for I2e (p = 0.028). Blind spot area was unchanged with age. Reaction times reduced with age (p50.004). There was no learning effect. A test speed of 5 /s is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Normative Vf Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Feasibility Of Testing Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Feasibility Of Testing Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

Bjerre

Codina

Griffiths

2014

Neuro-Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Quality and Output of Different Optimal Perimetric Testing Approaches in Children With Glaucoma

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

; for the Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC) study group 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, χ 2 = 0.33; P = .56), but better-quality tests with Humphrey perimetry were achieved in younger children (McNemar test, χ 2 = 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.

show abstract