Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jun 19;10(6):e0130895.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130895. eCollection 2015.

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children

Collaborators, Affiliations

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children

Dipesh E Patel et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have the following financial declarations: An Octopus perimeter was loaned to Great Ormond Street Hospital by Haag-Streit (AG, Switzerland) for use in this study. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Rose diagrams of the frequency of points plotted along individual meridians for Goldmann and Octopus perimetry for children aged 5–6 years compared to 12–15 years.
A larger area indicates a meridian with a larger number of plotted points. *The empty sectors at 0° for Goldmann perimetry isopters III4e and I4e correspond to the ‘void’ area in the perimeter bowl.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Proportion of EBAR (test quality) ratings per perimeter, by age groups.

References

    1. Harbert MJ, Yeh-Nayre LA, O'Halloran HS, Levy ML, Crawford JR. Unrecognized visual field deficits in children with primary central nervous system brain tumors. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2012;107(3):545–9. Epub 2011/12/06. 10.1007/s11060-011-0774-3 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walters BC, Rahi JS, Cumberland PM. Perimetry in children: survey of current practices in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 2012;19(6):358–63. Epub 2012/10/24. 10.3109/09286586.2012.718027 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mutlukan E, Damato BE. Computerised perimetry with moving and steady fixation in children. Eye. 1993;7(4):554–61. - PubMed
    1. Martin L. Rarebit and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in children and young adults. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 2005;83:670–7. - PubMed
    1. Mayer DL, Fulton AB, Cummings MF. Visual fields of infants assessed with a new perimetric technique. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 1988;29(3):452. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources