Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Ophthalmology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Programme choice for perimetry in neurological conditions (PoPiN): a systematic review of perimetry options and patterns of visual field loss

Authors: Lauren R. Hepworth, Fiona J. Rowe

Published in: BMC Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Visual field loss occurs frequently in neurological conditions and perimetry is commonly requested for patients with suspected or known conditions. There are currently no guidelines for how visual fields in neurological conditions should be assessed. There is a wide range of visual field programs available and the wrong choice of program can potentially fail to detect visual field loss. We report the results of a systematic review of the existing evidence base for the patterns of visual field loss in four common neurological conditions and the 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/or reporting visual field loss in one or more of the target conditions; idiopathic intracranial hypertension, optic neuropathy, chiasmal compression and stroke. Scholarly online databases and registers were searched. In addition articles were hand searched. MESH terms and alternatives in relation to the four target conditions and visual fields were used. Study selection was performed by two authors independently. Data was extracted by one author and verified by a second.

Results

This review included 330 studies; 51 in relation to idiopathic intracranial hypertension, 144 in relation to optic neuropathy, 105 in relation to chiasmal compression, 21 in relation to stroke and 10 in relation to a mixed neuro-ophthalmology population.

Conclusions

Both the 30–2 and 24–2 program using the Humphrey perimeter were most commonly reported followed by manual kinetic perimetry using the Goldmann perimeter across all four conditions included in this review. A wide variety of other perimeters and programs were reported. The patterns of visual field defects differ much more greatly across the four conditions. Central perimetry is used extensively in neurological conditions but with little supporting evidence for its diagnostic accuracy in these, especially considering the peripheral visual field may be affected first whilst the central visual field may not be impacted until later in the progression. Further research is required to reach a consensus on how best to standardise perimetry for neurological conditions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rowe FJ. Visual fields via the visual pathway, 2nd edition edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.CrossRef Rowe FJ. Visual fields via the visual pathway, 2nd edition edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Incidence of visual field loss in 20,000 eyes and its relationship to driving performance. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101:371–5.CrossRefPubMed Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Incidence of visual field loss in 20,000 eyes and its relationship to driving performance. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101:371–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference National Institute for for Health and Clinical Excellence. Glaucoma: Diagnosis and management of chronic open angle glaucoma and ocular Hypertension. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care at The Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2009. National Institute for for Health and Clinical Excellence. Glaucoma: Diagnosis and management of chronic open angle glaucoma and ocular Hypertension. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care at The Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2009.
6.
go back to reference Corbett JJ, Savino PJ, Thompson S, Kansu T, Schatz NJ, Orr LS, Hopson D. Visual loss in pseudotumour cerebri. Arch Neurol. 1982;39:461–74.CrossRefPubMed Corbett JJ, Savino PJ, Thompson S, Kansu T, Schatz NJ, Orr LS, Hopson D. Visual loss in pseudotumour cerebri. Arch Neurol. 1982;39:461–74.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Pane A, Burdon M, Miller NR. The neuro-ophthalmology survival guide. Edinburgh: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. Pane A, Burdon M, Miller NR. The neuro-ophthalmology survival guide. Edinburgh: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
8.
go back to reference Rowe FJ, Sarkies NJ. Assessment of visual function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective study. Eye. 1998;12:111–8.CrossRefPubMed Rowe FJ, Sarkies NJ. Assessment of visual function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective study. Eye. 1998;12:111–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hayreh SS, Zimmerman B. Visual field abnormalities in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy their pattern and prevalence at initial examination. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1554–62.CrossRefPubMed Hayreh SS, Zimmerman B. Visual field abnormalities in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy their pattern and prevalence at initial examination. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1554–62.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Rowe FJ, Chenye CP, Garcia-Fiñana M, Noonan C, Howard C, Smith J, Adeoye J. Detection of visual field loss in pituatary disease: peripheral kinetic versus central static. Neuro-Ophthalmology. 2015;39(3):116–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rowe FJ, Chenye CP, Garcia-Fiñana M, Noonan C, Howard C, Smith J, Adeoye J. Detection of visual field loss in pituatary disease: peripheral kinetic versus central static. Neuro-Ophthalmology. 2015;39(3):116–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Rowe F, Hepworth L, Hanna K, Howard C. Point prevalence of visual impairment following stroke. Int J Stroke. 2016;11(Suppl 4):7. Rowe F, Hepworth L, Hanna K, Howard C. Point prevalence of visual impairment following stroke. Int J Stroke. 2016;11(Suppl 4):7.
12.
go back to reference Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National clinical guideline for stroke. 5th ed. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National clinical guideline for stroke. 5th ed. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
13.
go back to reference Jones SA, Shinton RA. Improving outcome in stroke patients with visual problems. Age Ageing. 2006;35(6):560–5.CrossRefPubMed Jones SA, Shinton RA. Improving outcome in stroke patients with visual problems. Age Ageing. 2006;35(6):560–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJM, Tsai JC. Comparison of 24-2 and 30-2 perimetry in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol. 1999;19(2):100–8.CrossRefPubMed Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJM, Tsai JC. Comparison of 24-2 and 30-2 perimetry in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol. 1999;19(2):100–8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Szatmáry G, Biousse V, Newman NJ. Can Swedish Intractive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to Goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice? Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(9):1162–73.CrossRefPubMed Szatmáry G, Biousse V, Newman NJ. Can Swedish Intractive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to Goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice? Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(9):1162–73.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(5):543–53.CrossRefPubMed Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(5):543–53.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Wong AM, Sharpe JA. A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and Humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(3):527–44.CrossRefPubMed Wong AM, Sharpe JA. A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and Humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(3):527–44.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Pineles SL, Volpe NJ, Miller-Ellis E, Galetta SL, Sankar PS, Shindler KS, Maguire MG. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:363–9.CrossRefPubMed Pineles SL, Volpe NJ, Miller-Ellis E, Galetta SL, Sankar PS, Shindler KS, Maguire MG. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:363–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Programme choice for perimetry in neurological conditions (PoPiN): a systematic review of perimetry options and patterns of visual field loss
Authors
Lauren R. Hepworth
Fiona J. Rowe
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2415
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0912-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Ophthalmology 1/2018 Go to the issue