ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Visual Field Examinations for Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of OCT-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Detecting and Predicting Glaucoma Progression: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Morphological Characteristics in Patients with Cone Dysfunction Disorders: A Retrospective Case Series.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Visual field (VF) testing remains a cornerstone in assessing retinal function by measuring how well different parts of the retina detect light. It is essential for early detection, monitoring, and management of many retinal diseases. By mapping retinal sensitivity, VF exams can reveal functional loss before structural changes become visible. This review summarizes how VF testing is applied across key conditions: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR) and macular edema (DME), and inherited disorders including inherited dystrophies such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Traditional methods like the Goldmann kinetic perimetry and simple tools such as the Amsler grid help identify large or central VF defects. Automated perimetry (e.g., Humphrey Field Analyzer) provides detailed, quantitative data critical for detecting subtle paracentral scotomas in HCQ retinopathy and central vision loss in AMD. Frequency-doubling technology (FDT) reveals early neural deficits in DR before blood vessel changes appear. Microperimetry offers precise, localized sensitivity maps for macular diseases. Despite its value, VF testing faces challenges including patient fatigue, variability in responses, and interpretation of unreliable results. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, virtual reality perimetry, and home-based perimetry systems are improving test accuracy, accessibility, and patient engagement. Integrating VF exams with these emerging technologies promises more personalized care, earlier intervention, and better long-term outcomes for patients with retinal disease.
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.