SynthesisOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Visual field defects in dementia: A scoping review.
Synthesis in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual field defects in dementia: A scoping review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Pooled it
- Characterizing Visual Field Defects with Tangent Screen Perimetry in Organic Versus Non-Organic Pathologies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Longitudinal assessment of intraocular pressure in the 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis review aimed to systematically assess the literature reporting the relationship between dementia and standard automated perimetry results, including sensitivity, global indices, patterns of visual field defect and reliability indices.
designA scoping review and meta-analysis were conducted. SETTING AND
participantsPublished studies in any setting which reported on standard automated perimetry results (any of: global indices, pointwise sensitivities, reliability indices and/or patterns of visual field defects) in participants with ('cases') or without ('controls') dementia due to neurodegenerative disease.
methodsFour databases were searched (to July 2024) and included published studies comparing the perimetry results of cases and controls. Standardised mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated where data were available. Studies with qualitative visual field results were identified and described. The Joanna Briggs Institute checklists were used for quality assessment.
resultsFour studies were included in the meta-analysis component of the study. Standardised mean differences between cases and controls were -1.16 (-1.47, -0.86) and -0.96 (-1.26, -0.67) for mean deviation and pattern standard deviation, respectively. The standardised mean differences for fixation loss, false positive and false negative rates were -0.30 (-0.57, -0.04), -0.33 (-0.60, -0.06) and -1.12 (-1.40, -0.83), respectively. In all instances, cases had poorer results than controls. Hemianopias were the most common visual field defect pattern, followed by quadrantonopia, with left-sided defects more common than right. Several studies illustrated visual field sensitivity and deviation maps, from which examples of inattentive defects were identified.
conclusionsCross-sectional studies, case series and case reports demonstrated worse visual function and reliability indices in patients with dementia in comparison to controls. Several knowledge gaps and opportunities for further study were identified, including potentially using patterns of poor test reliability and inattention as surrogate markers of cognitive impairment and its relationship with quantitative evaluation of cognitive function.
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.