UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): Development and feasibility of the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM)

Patel, DE; Viswanathan, AC; Garway-Heath, D; Cumberland, PM; Walters, BC; Russell-Eggitt, I; Cortina-Borja, M; ... Rahi, J; + view all (2016) Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): Development and feasibility of the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM). British Journal of Ophthalmology , 101 (2) pp. 94-96. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309402. Green open access

[thumbnail of Patel_KPRM_091016_clean.pdf]
Preview
Text
Patel_KPRM_091016_clean.pdf

Download (145kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Patel_Figure 1.tif]
Preview
Image
Patel_Figure 1.tif

Download (1MB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Patel_Figure 2.tif]
Preview
Image
Patel_Figure 2.tif

Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Interpretation of perimetric findings, particularly in children, relies on accurate assessment of test reliability, yet no objective measures of reliability exist for kinetic perimetry. We developed the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM), a quantitative measure of perimetric test reproducibility/reliability and report here its feasibility and association with subjective assessment of reliability. METHODS: Children aged 5-15 years, without an ophthalmic condition that affects the visual field, were recruited from Moorfields Eye Hospital and underwent Goldmann perimetry as part of a wider research programme on perimetry in children. Subjects were tested with two isopters and the blind spot was plotted, followed by a KPRM. Test reliability was also scored qualitatively using our examiner-based assessment of reliability (EBAR) scoring system, which standardises the conventional clinical approach to assessing test quality. The relationship between KPRM and EBAR was examined to explore the use of KPRM in assessing reliability of kinetic fields. RESULTS: A total of 103 children (median age 8.9 years; IQR: 7.1 to 11.8 years) underwent Goldmann perimetry with KPRM and EBAR scoring. A KPRM was achieved by all children. KPRM values increased with reducing test quality (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.005), indicating greater testretest variability, and reduced with age (linear regression, p=0.015). One of 103 children (0.97%) demonstrated discordance between EBAR and KPRM. CONCLUSION: KPRM and EBAR are distinct but complementary approaches. Though scores show excellent agreement, KPRM is able to quantify withintest variability, providing data not captured by subjective assessment. Thus, we suggest combining KPRM with EBAR to aid interpretation of kinetic perimetry test reliability in children.

Type: Article
Title: Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): Development and feasibility of the kinetic perimetry reliability measure (KPRM)
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309402
Publisher version: http://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309402
Language: English
Additional information: © 2016 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Institute of Ophthalmology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > UCL GOS Institute of Child Health
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > UCL GOS Institute of Child Health > Population, Policy and Practice Dept
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1529811
Downloads since deposit
220Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item