English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-018-0912-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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