ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2019
Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): evaluation of kinetic approaches in childhood neuro-ophthalmic disease.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Devising and Evaluating an Adaptive Static-Automated Perimetry Test for Children: A Feasibility Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- The diagnostic value of multichannel VEPs for children without nystagmus.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Pediatric eye movement-based perimetry: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Spatial Characteristics of Peripheral Visual Islands in Retinitis Pigmentosa.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
- Lessons Learned from 23 Years of Experience in Testing Visual Fields of Neurologically Impaired Children.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe 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.
methodsChildren 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.
resultsThirty 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
conclusionsInformative 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.