June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
How should we assess reliability of visual field assessment in children?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Dipesh Patel
    MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Phillippa Cumberland
    MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
    Ulverscroft Vision Research Group, London, United Kingdom
  • Isabelle Russell-Eggitt
    Ulverscroft Vision Research Group, London, United Kingdom
    Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Bronwen Walters
    Ulverscroft Vision Research Group, London, United Kingdom
    Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Jugnoo Rahi
    MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
    UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Dipesh Patel, None; Phillippa Cumberland, None; Isabelle Russell-Eggitt, None; Bronwen Walters, None; Jugnoo Rahi, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5675. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Dipesh Patel, Phillippa Cumberland, Isabelle Russell-Eggitt, Bronwen Walters, Jugnoo Rahi, ; How should we assess reliability of visual field assessment in children?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5675.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

In the OPTIC study, we are investigating a number of questions about kinetic and static perimetry in children using Goldmann, Octopus and Humphrey perimeters. Here we report how individual examiner-based assessment (EBA) compares with automatically generated 'reliability' indices (RI) used commonly in adult perimetry (fixation losses, false positive/negative rates).

 
Methods
 

To date 64 children aged 5-15 years, without ocular pathology that could cause a visual field defect i.e controls/normative subjects have undergone kinetic perimetry (Goldmann and Octopus) and static automated perimetry (SAP, using Humphrey SITA 24-2 FAST) using standard protocols with testing by one examiner. For each test, the examiner scored overall reliability (‘good’,’fair’ or ‘poor’) together with an assessment of the subjects’ comprehension of instructions, fatigue, fixation, response to visual and auditory stimuli and behaviour. Additionally, subjects self-rated the test difficulty (using a 5-point Likert scale), and duration of each phase of testing was recorded. The automatically generated SAP reliability indices (RI) were noted, with a test being recorded as ‘unreliable’ with ≥20% fixation losses or ≥15% false positives, as per conventional adult thresholds. We examined agreement, by age, between RI and EBA.

 
Results
 

No significant agreement was found between EBA and ‘fixation losses’ as an RI (test for trend; p=0.887). EBA and ‘false positive’ measures demonstrated good agreement (p<0.001; Table 1). Analysis of EBA by age (2 groups; 5-8 and 9-15 years) showed 94% (17 of 18) of older children and 41% (19 of 46) of younger children achieved a ‘good’ rating (χ2, p<0.001). Only 1 child, aged 8, had difficulty understanding test instructions. Rest breaks were required to complete testing in 8.7% of younger participants but older children could complete the assessment without these.

 
Conclusions
 

In comparison to a qualitative examiner assessment, automated fixation loss measurements may have limited value in assessing reliability in children, with traditional thresholds used for adult testing erroneously under-estimating the reliability of paediatric perimetry. Where false positive rates are to be used to assess reliability, we advocate they are complimented by a qualitative assessment to avoid potentially informative perimetric tests being disregarded.

 
 
Table 1. Agreement between EBA and false positives as an RI.
 
Table 1. Agreement between EBA and false positives as an RI.
 
Keywords: 642 perimetry • 758 visual fields  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×