ArticleHeliyon2022
Detection of visual field defects using Eye Movement Pediatric Perimetry in children with intracranial lesions: feasibility and applicability.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric eye movement-based perimetry: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Effect of ethnic diversity on the saccadic reaction time among healthy Indian and Dutch adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed at evaluating the feasibility of Eye Movement Pediatric Perimetry (EMPP) among children in detecting Visual Field Defects (VFDs) associated with Intracranial Lesions (IL). Healthy controls (n = 35) and patients diagnosed with IL (n = 19) underwent a comprehensive clinical evaluation followed by a Goldmann Visual Field (GVF) and a customised EMPP protocol. During EMPP, all the participants were encouraged to fixate on a central target and initiate Saccadic Eye Movement (SEM) responses towards randomly appearing peripheral stimuli. The SEM responses were recorded using an eye-tracking device and further inspected to calculate Performance Scores (PS), Saccadic Reaction Times (SRTs), and an EMPP Index (EMPI). The mean age (years) of the controls and cases were 7.3 (SD: 1.5) and 9.4 (SD: 2.4) respectively. Among the controls, the older children (≥7 years) showed statistically significantly faster SRTs (p = 0.008) compared to the younger group. The binocular EMPP measurements compared between the controls and the cases revealed no statistically significant differences in PS (p = 0.34) and SRT (p = 0.51). EMPP failed in 4 children because of data loss or unacceptably poor PS whereas GVF failed in 7 children due to unreliable subjective responses. Of the 16 reports, with regard to the central 30-degree VF, 63% of the outputs obtained from both methods were comparable. EMPP is a reliable method to estimate and characterise the central 30-degree VF in greater detail in children with IL. EMPP can supplement the conventional methods, especially in those children who fail to complete a long duration GVF test.
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.