Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30944987›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2019

Eye Movement Perimetry and Frequency Doubling Perimetry: clinical performance and patient preference during glaucoma screening.

Najiya Sundus Kadavath Meethal, Johan J M Pel, Deepmala Mazumdar, Rashima Asokan, Manish Panday, Johannes van der Steen, Ronnie George

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Najiya Sundus Kadavath MeethalDepartment of Neuroscience, Vestibular and Ocular Motor Research Group, Erasmus MC, 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johan J M PelDepartment of Neuroscience, Vestibular and Ocular Motor Research Group, Erasmus MC, 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Deepmala MazumdarDepartment of Neuroscience, Vestibular and Ocular Motor Research Group, Erasmus MC, 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rashima AsokanMedical and Vision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Manish PandayMedical and Vision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Johannes van der SteenDepartment of Neuroscience, Vestibular and Ocular Motor Research Group, Erasmus MC, 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronnie GeorgeMedical and Vision Research Foundation, Chennai, India. drrg@snmail.org.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLErasmus MC · NLVisio · NL

Funding

Department of Science and Technology, Government of India DST/INT/NL/Biomed/P (2)/2011(G)ZonMw 116310001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the screening accuracy of an Eye Movement Perimetry (EMP) in comparison with Frequency Doubling Perimetry (FDP) and to investigate the patient preference and perception towards these visual field screening methods.

methodsA total of 104 healthy subjects (mean age (SD) of 48 (14) years) and 73 glaucoma patients (mean age (SD) of 52 (13) years) were recruited. All the participants underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation including the 24-2 SITA standard protocol on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). This was followed by the 26-point protocol in EMP and the C-20-1 protocol in FDP. During EMP, all subjects were instructed to fixate a central target and to look at the detected peripheral target, followed by refixation of the central target and Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT) towards each of the "seen" stimuli was calculated. Next, a questionnaire was administered to evaluate the patient preference and perception towards the perimetry techniques. Mean SRTs and Robin scores were used to plot Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves to determine the screening accuracies. From the questionnaire survey, the frequency distributions of the responses were calculated.

resultsRobin score and SRT were significantly increased in glaucoma patients in comparison with the age-matched healthy subjects (p < 0.001). The ROC analysis revealed comparable Area Under the Curve (AUC) values (0.95, p = 0.81) with a specificity of 95.2% for FDP and 96.2% for EMP with a sensitivity of 87.7%. Thirty-seven percent of the older age group (≥ 40 years) and 65% of severe glaucoma patients showed preference for EMP over FDP.

conclusionsThis study results indicate that the customized protocol in EMP provides efficient and rapid means of screening visual field defects in glaucoma, which compared well with FDP. Elderly healthy participants and patients with moderate and severe glaucomatous defects preferred EMP as it permitted natural reflexive eye movements thereby resembling a real-life test setting.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsPatient PreferenceAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlaucomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveVision ScreeningVisual FieldsVisual Field TestsYoung AdultEye movement perimetryFrequency doubling perimetryGlaucoma screeningPatient preferencePerimetryRobin’s scoreSaccadic reaction timeVisual field defects

Identifiers

PMID30944987
OpenAlexW2930359539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.