Literature DB >> 8759261

Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age.

A B Safran1, G L Laffi, A Bullinger, P Viviani, C de Weisse, D Désangles, C Tschopp, C Mermoud.   

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate how young children develop the ability to undergo a visual field evaluation using regular automated perimetry.
METHODS: The study included 42 normal girls aged 5, 6, 7, and 8 years. Twelve locations in the 15 degrees eccentricity were tested in one eye, using an Octopus 2000R perimeter with a two level strategy. False positive and false negative catch trials were presented. The examination was performed three times in succession. Before the examination procedure, a specially designed programme was conducted for progressive familiarisation.
RESULTS: During the familiarisation procedure, it was found that all of the 5-year-old children, seven of the 6-year-old children, and three of the 7-year-old children were unable to perform immediately, and correctly, the instructions given during the familiarisation phase; these children took from 30 seconds to 3 minutes to comply with the examiner's requests. With the exception of one 5-year-old child, all tested subjects completed the planned procedure. The mean proportion of false negative answers in catch trials was 1.6%. The mean proportion of false positive answers was 12.2%. The quadratic dependency on age suggested by the averages was not significant (F(3,116) = 0.88; p = 0.45). Detection stimulus improved with age, as shown by the fact that probability of perceiving dim stimulus increases significantly (F(3,116) = 12.68; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Children did remarkably well regarding both the duration of the examination and the reliability of the answers. A preliminary familiarisation phase with a specially designed adaptation programme was found to be mandatory with children aged 7 or under. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such an investigation has been performed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8759261      PMCID: PMC505522          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.80.6.515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  3 in total

1.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-11

2.  Computerised perimetry with moving and steady fixation in children.

Authors:  E Mutlukan; B E Damato
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Visual fields in 4- to 10-year-old children using Goldmann and double-arc perimeters.

Authors:  G E Quinn; A M Fea; N Minguini
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1991 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.402

  3 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  [Conventional techniques of visual field examination: part 4 Static perimetry: interpretation--perimetric indices--follow-up--perimetry in childhood].

Authors:  U Schiefer; J Pätzold; B Wabbels; F Dannheim
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability.

Authors:  Anne Bjerre; Charlotte Codina; Helen Griffiths
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2014-06-09

3.  Normal values for Octopus tendency oriented perimetry in children 7 through 13 years old.

Authors:  Sandra M Brown; Jay C Bradley; Matthias J Monhart; Deborah K Baker
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.

Authors:  Stephanie Wilscher; Bettina Wabbels; Birgit Lorenz
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  The ophthalmic natural history of paediatric craniopharyngioma: a long-term review.

Authors:  Evangelos Drimtzias; Kevin Falzon; Susan Picton; Irfan Jeeva; Danielle Guy; Olwyn Nelson; Ian Simmons
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-08-31       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Development of a Pediatric Visual Field Test.

Authors:  Marco A Miranda; David B Henson; Cecilia Fenerty; Susmito Biswas; Tariq Aslam
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Comparison of visual field test results obtained through Humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry versus standard automated perimetry in healthy children.

Authors:  Sibel Kocabeyoglu; Salih Uzun; Mehmet Cem Mocan; Banu Bozkurt; Murat Irkec; Mehmet Orhan
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.848

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.