ArticlePloS one2025
Alternative perimetric tests for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveVisual field assessment is an important presurgical test for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), particularly with posterior cortex epilepsy. However, the assessment using conventional perimeters like Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA) may not always be feasible in some patients. This study aims to determine if alternative methods like tangent screen perimetry or Baby Vision Screener (BaViS) can be used for such patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included 17 patients (mean age: 18 ± 8.7, range: 6 to 38 years) with DRE. Visual fields were attempted first with HFA and then with one or both alternative methods, by different examiners. Visual field extent was measured using the kinetic perimetry mode in the alternative methods. With HFA, kinetic and/or static perimetry was attempted.
resultsOnly 12% of the patients were able to perform the HFA. Whereas the testability of BaViS was 91% and tangent screen perimetry was 87%. Comparable visual field isopters were obtained on one patient on whom all the 3 tests could be performed, and in two patients on whom at least two tests could be performed reliably. For one patient, visual field isopters could not be quantified on any device. In this patient, a gross visual field assessment was possible using BaViS.
conclusionBaViS or tangent screen perimeter can be used to quantify visual field defects in patients with DRE when conventional perimetry is not possible. Such an approach may help the clinician in assessing the suitability of patients with DRE and visual field deficits, for epilepsy surgery.
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.