ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): developing consensus and setting research priorities for perimetry in the management of children with glaucoma.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome measures in childhood glaucoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Visual Field Progression in Childhood Glaucoma Versus Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The associations of self-perception, movement competence, and clinical features of young school-aged children with glaucoma.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerimetry is important in the management of children with glaucoma, but there is limited evidence-based guidance on its use. We report an expert consensus-based study to update guidance and identify areas requiring further research.
methodsExperts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi consensus process. Panel selection was based on clinical experience of managing children with glaucoma and UK-based training to minimise diversity of view due to healthcare setting. Questionnaires were delivered electronically, and analysed to establish 'agreement'. Divergence of opinions was investigated and resolved where possible through further iterations.
results7/9 experts invited agreed to participate. Consensus (≥5/7 (71%) in agreement) was achieved for 21/26 (80.8%) items in 2 rounds, generating recommendations to start perimetry from approximately 7 years of age (IQR: 6.75-7.25), and use qualitative methods in conjunction with automated reliability indices to assess test quality. There was a lack of agreement about defining progressive visual field (VF) loss and methods for implementing perimetry longitudinally. Panel members highlighted the importance of informing decisions based upon individual circumstances-from gauging maturity/capability when selecting tests and interpreting outcomes, to accounting for specific clinical features (e.g. poor IOP control and/or suspected progressive VF loss) when making decisions about frequency of testing.
conclusionsThere is commonality of expert views in relation to implementing perimetry and interpreting test quality in the management of children with glaucoma. However, there remains a lack of agreement about defining progressive VF loss, and utilising perimetry over an individuals' lifetime, highlighting the need for further research.
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.