Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38539623›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2024

Sensitivity and Specificity of Qualitative Visual Field Tests for Screening Visual Hemifield Deficits in Right-Brain-Damaged Stroke Patients.

Maria De Luca, Fabrizio Zeri, Alessandro Matano, Concetta Di Lorenzo, Maria Paola Ciurli, Martina Mulas, Virginia Pollarini, Stefano Paolucci, Davide Nardo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maria De LucaIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0084-3772
Fabrizio ZeriDepartment of Materials Science, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20125 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-555X
Alessandro MatanoIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome, Italy.
Concetta Di LorenzoIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-2614-7533
Maria Paola CiurliIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2019-9569
Martina MulasFaculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-3827-4150
Virginia PollariniFaculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-2259-2819
Stefano PaolucciIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3105-1148
Davide NardoDepartment of Education, University of Roma Tre, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8158-5738
Fondazione Santa Lucia · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITRoma Tre University · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

Ministry of Health (Ministero della Salute) This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ministero della Salute, Ri-cerca Corrente, Linea 1) to IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A timely detection of visual hemifield deficits (VHFDs; hemianopias or quadrantanopias) is critical for both the diagnosis and treatment of stroke patients. The present study determined the sensitivity and specificity of four qualitative visual field tests, including face description, confrontation tests (finger wiggle), and kinetic boundary perimetry, to screen large and dense VHFDs in right-brain-damaged (RBD) stroke patients. Previously, the accuracy of qualitative visual field tests was examined in unselected samples of patients with heterogeneous aetiology, in which stroke patients represented a very small fraction. Building upon existing tests, we introduced some procedural ameliorations (incl. a novel procedure for kinetic boundary perimetry) and provided a scoresheet to facilitate the grading. The qualitative visual field tests' outcome of 67 consecutive RBD stroke patients was compared with the standard automated perimetry (SAP; i.e., reference standard) outcome to calculate sensitivity and specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), both for each individual test and their combinations. The face description test scored the lowest sensitivity and NPV, while the kinetic boundary perimetry scored the highest. No test returned false positives. Combining the monocular static finger wiggle test (by quadrants) and the kinetic boundary perimetry returned the highest sensitivity and specificity, in line with previous studies, but with higher accuracy (100% sensitivity and specificity). These findings indicate that the combination of these two tests is a valid approach with RBD stroke patients, prompting referral for a formal visual field examination, and representing a quick, easy-to-perform, and inexpensive tool for improving their care and prognosis.

Indexed as

confrontation testshemianopiakinetic boundary perimetryquadrantanopiaright-brain strokesensitivityspecificityvisual field

Identifiers

PMID38539623
PMCPMC10969102
OpenAlexW4392295429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.