ArticleActa ophthalmologica2019
Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter?
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Head-Mounted Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared with Stationary Perimeters across All Stages of Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Long-Term Visual Field Variability in Patients With Normal-Tension Glaucoma.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Prediction of repeatable glaucomatous visual field defects based on cluster characteristics.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Validation of a Novel Suprathreshold Strategy for Screening Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Repeatability of a Virtual Reality Headset Perimeter in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertensive Patients.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Real-World Analysis of the Aging Effects on Visual Field Reliability Indices in Central 10-2 Tests.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Real-World Analysis of the Aging Effects on Visual Field Reliability Indices in Humans.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of Compass Suprathreshold Screening Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of the SITA Faster-a new visual field strategy with SITA Fast strategy.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Consistency of Online Circular Contrast Perimetry Across Different Computer Monitors: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn spite of faster examination procedures, visual field (VF) results are potentially influenced by fatigue. We use large-scale VF data collected from clinics to test the hypothesis that perimetric fatigue effects are greater in the eye examined second.
methodsSeries of six Humphrey Swedish Interactive Testing Algorithm (SITA) VFs from 6901 patients were retrospectively extracted from a VF database from four different glaucoma clinics. Mean deviation (MD) was compared between first and second tested eyes. A surrogate measure of longitudinal MD variability over time was estimated from errors using linear regression of MD against time then compared between first and second tested eye.
resultsRight eye VF was tested consistently first throughout in 6320 (91.6%) patients. Median (interquartile range; IQR) MD in the first tested (right) eye and second tested (left) eye was -2.57 (-6.15, -0.58) dB and -2.70 (-6.34, -0.80) dB respectively (median reduction VF sensitivity of 0.13 dB; p < 0.001). Median (IQR) increase in our surrogate measure of longitudinal MD variability in the second eye tested was 3% (-43%, 50%); this effect was not associated with patient age or rest time between examinations.
conclusionStatistically significant perimetric fatigue effects manifest on average in the second eye tested in routine clinics using Humphrey Field Analyzer SITA examinations. However, the average effects were very small and there was enormous variation among patients. We recommend starting with a right eye examination so that any perimetric fatigue effects, if they exist in an individual, will be as constant as possible from visit to visit.
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.