Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Diagnostic yield of Humphrey visual field 30-2 testing for neurological versus non-neurological visual disorders: A tertiary-care retrospective study.
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic yield of Humphrey visual field (HVF) 30-2 automated perimetry in differentiating neurological from non-neurological causes of visual dysfunction.
methodsDesign: Retrospective observational record-based study. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology at a tertiary-care referral institute in Central India. Study population: All HVF tests performed between July 2023 and June 2025 were reviewed. Of 1,438 tests performed, 383 reliable HVF tests using the 30-2 program with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Standard or SITA Fast strategy were included. Tests with fixation losses >20%, false positive or negative responses >15%, incomplete records, or media opacities were excluded. Observation procedure: Visual field tests were categorized according to indication as neurological or non-neurological causes. Field patterns were analyzed and correlated with clinical findings and neuroimaging results. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of HVF (30-2 program) contributing to confirmation of neurological disease.
resultsAmong 383 HVF 30-2 tests, 226 (59.0%) were performed for neurological indications. Abnormal fields were detected in 132/226 (58.4%) neurological cases compared with 42/157 (26.8%) non-neurological cases (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.48-5.95). Confirmed neurological diseases were identified in 118 (52.2%) neurological referrals versus 3 (1.9%) non-neurological referrals (OR 56.6; 95% CI: 17.4-184.0). Bitemporal hemianopia (23.5%), homonymous hemianopia (19.7%), and central scotoma (16.7%) were the most common field patterns, with >90% radiological correlation. HVF 30-2 testing demonstrated high diagnostic performance for neurological disorders (OR 56.6; 95% CI: 17.4-184.0; P < 0.001).
conclusionHVF 30-2 perimetry demonstrates high diagnostic yield for neurological disorders and serves as a reliable, noninvasive functional investigation for neuro-ophthalmic evaluation.
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.