ArticleCureus2025
Improving Visual Field Testing Reliability by Using an Educational Patient Leaflet.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Reliability indices such as fixation losses (FL), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN) determine the clinical utility of standard automated perimetry (SAP). Patient education can improve test performance, but low-cost, scalable approaches are needed. Our study aimed to evaluate whether a one-page patient leaflet delivered immediately before testing improves Humphrey Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Fast 24-2 reliability. Methods We conducted a single-center, non-randomized quality-improvement study in glaucoma follow-up clinics. A total of 39 patients were included in this study. Each eye's most recent pre-leaflet SAP test was paired with its first post-leaflet SAP test under identical parameters (Humphrey Field Analyzer, SITA Fast 24-2, size III, 31.5 asb). The primary endpoint was composite "full reliability" (FL ≤10%, FP ≤10%, FN ≤10%) per eye, analyzed with McNemar's test and effects reported as the difference in paired proportions with 95% CI. Family-wise error across eyes was controlled by Holm-Bonferroni. The secondary endpoints were continuous changes in FL%, FP%, and FN% per eye, analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Hodges-Lehmann (HL) median change. Analyses were performed per eye without across-eye pooling, and only pairwise complete cases were used. This project was registered locally as a quality-improvement study and adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Results We analyzed 39 right and 37 left eyes (patient mean age: 66±15.5 years; mean inter-test interval 6.3 months). For our primary outcome of full reliability, the proportion of reliable tests increased from 31% to 54% in the right eye and from 41% to 65% in the left eye, with both remaining significant after Holm-Bonferroni. For our secondary outcome, FN% decreased significantly (right -4.5 pp and left -4.0 pp), while FL% declined in the right eye (-16.4 pp) with no significant change in the left. FP% showed small, non-significant increases. Conclusions A brief, one-page leaflet delivered immediately before SITA Fast testing increased the proportion of fully reliable fields and reduced false-negative responses in routine practice. This low-cost intervention is straightforward to implement and may reduce repeat testing. Confirmation under SITA Faster with a randomized design using visit-level endpoints is warranted.
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.