ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Visual Field Tests: A Narrative Review of Different Perimetric Methods.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvements in Static Balance Following an Oculomotor Exercise Program in Athletes.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2026Trial
- Mapping human visual contrast sensitivity and vision loss across the visual field with model-based fMRI.eLife · 2026Article
- Assessment of Sport-Related Brain Injuries with Rapid Objective Perimetry.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characterizing Visual Field Defects with Tangent Screen Perimetry in Organic Versus Non-Organic Pathologies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recovery in pupillometric non-visual functions following chiasmal decompression in pituitary adenoma.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Clinical Assessment of a Virtual Reality Perimeter Versus the Humphrey Field Analyzer: Comparative Reliability, Usability, and Prospective Applications.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Visual Field Examinations for Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Validation of a Novel Suprathreshold Strategy for Screening Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual field (VF) testing dates back to fifth century B.C. It plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of retinal and neurological diseases. This review summarizes each of the different VF tests and perimetric methods, including the advantages and disadvantages and adherence to the desired standard diagnostic criteria. The review targets beginners and eye care professionals and includes history and evolution, qualitative and quantitative tests, and subjective and objective perimetric methods. VF testing methods have evolved in terms of technique, precision, user-friendliness, and accuracy. Consequently, some earlier perimetric techniques, often still effective, are not used or have been forgotten. Newer technologies may not always be advantageous because of higher costs, and they may not achieve the desired sensitivity and specificity. VF testing is most often used in glaucoma and neurological diseases, but new objective methods that also measure response latencies are emerging for the management of retinal diseases. Given the varied perimetric methods available, clinicians are advised to select appropriate methods to suit their needs and target disease and to decide on applying simple vs. complex tests or between using subjective and objective methods. Newer, rapid, non-contact, objective methods may provide improved patient satisfaction and allow for the testing of children and the infirm.
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.