Programme choice for perimetry inneurological conditions (PoPiN): asystematic review of perimetry options andpatterns of visual field loss

Hepworth, Lauren R ORCID: 0000-0001-8542-9815 and Rowe, Fiona J ORCID: 0000-0001-9210-9131
(2018) Programme choice for perimetry inneurological conditions (PoPiN): asystematic review of perimetry options andpatterns of visual field loss. BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY, 18 (1). 241-.

[img] Text
Hepworth & Rowe PoPiN a systematic review of perimetry options and patterns of visual field loss.pdf - Published version

Download (1MB)


Background:Visual field loss occurs frequently in neurological conditions and perimetry is commonly requestedfor patients with suspected or known conditions. There are currently no guidelines for how visual fields inneurological conditions should be assessed. There is a wide range of visual field programs available and thewrong choice of program can potentially fail to detect visual field loss. We report the results of a systematicreview of the existing evidence base for the patterns of visual field loss in four common neurological conditions andthe perimetry programs used, to aid the design of future research and clinical practice guidelines.Methods:A systematic search of the literature was performed. The inclusion criteria required studies testing and/orreporting visual field loss in one or more of the target conditions; idiopathic intracranial hypertension, opticneuropathy, chiasmal compression and stroke. Scholarly online databases and registers were searched. Inaddition articles were hand searched. MESH terms and alternatives in relation to the four target conditionsand visual fields were used. Study selection was performed by two authors independently. Data was extractedby one author and verified by a second.Results:This review included 330 studies; 51 in relation to idiopathic intracranial hypertension, 144 in relationto optic neuropathy, 105 in relation to chiasmal compression,21inrelationtostrokeand10inrelationtoamixed neuro-ophthalmology population.Conclusions:Both the 30–2and24–2 program using the Humphrey perimeter were most commonlyreported followed by manual kinetic perimetry using the Goldmann perimeter across all four conditionsincluded in this review. A wide variety of other perimeters and programs were reported. The patterns ofvisual field defects differ much more greatly across thefour conditions. Central perimetry is used extensivelyin neurological conditions but with little supporting evidence for its diagnostic accuracy in these, especiallyconsidering the peripheral visual field may be affected first whilst the central visual field may not beimpacted until later in the progression. Further research is required to reach a consensus on how best tostandardise perimetry for neurological conditions.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Perimetry, Visual field loss, Idiopathic intracranial hypertension, Chiasmal compression, Stroke, Optic neuropathy
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 14 Sep 2018 08:36
Last Modified: 19 Jan 2023 01:17
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-018-0912-1
Related URLs: