ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Pediatric eye movement-based perimetry: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Eye movement-based perimetry (EMP) is a promising, non-invasive approach for visual field assessment, particularly in pediatric populations where standard automated perimetry often fails. However, completion rates in prior pediatric EMP studies have ranged from 41 to 81%, and reasons for unsuccessful testing are seldom reported. Objective: In this perspective article, we aim to highlight practical barriers and design gaps in EMP systems for children, with a focus on clinical use. Observations: From our clinical experience with testing two commercially available EMP systems in children (21 patients with brain tumors and 19 age-matched controls), we observed recurring challenges, including poor ergonomic fit, inadequate calibration of eye tracker, and insufficient attention management strategies. These issues frequently led to data loss and incomplete tests, underscoring the gap between current technology and pediatric clinical needs. We outline solutions informed by technological development, vision science and clinical ophthalmology. Conclusion: Pediatric testing experience must inform EMP design to ensure accessibility and reliability. Our observations highlight the need for clinician-engineer-scientist collaboration, with innovations likely to benefit not only children but also adults with similar testing challenges.
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.