Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730989›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Visual Field Tests: A Narrative Review of Different Perimetric Methods.

Bhim Bahadur Rai, Faran Sabeti, Corinne Frances Carle, Ted Maddess

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improvements in Static Balance Following an Oculomotor Exercise Program in Athletes.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Bhim Bahadur RaiJohn Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0748-4581
Faran SabetiJohn Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-7569
Corinne Frances CarleJohn Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3309-9073
Ted MaddessJohn Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4591-3658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Amsler gridobjective perimetryperimetric methodsprinciple of redundancyvisual field tests

Identifiers

PMID38730989
PMCPMC11084906

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.