A Consensus Statement on the Terminology for Automated Visual Field Abnormalities.
Journal
Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society
ISSN: 1536-5166
Titre abrégé: J Neuroophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9431308
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
19
10
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
entrez:
18
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A multitude of terms have been used to describe automated visual field abnormalities. To date, there is no universally accepted system of definitions or guidelines. Variability among clinicians creates the risk of miscommunication and the compromise of patient care. The purposes of this study were to 1) assess the degree of consistency among a group of neuro-ophthalmologists in the description of visual field abnormalities and 2) to create a consensus statement with standardized terminology and definitions. In phase one of the study, all neuro-ophthalmologists in Israel were asked to complete a survey in which they described the abnormalities in 10 selected automated visual field tests. In phase 2 of the study, the authors created a national consensus statement on the terminology and definitions for visual field abnormalities using a modified Delphi method. In phase 3, the neuro-ophthalmologists were asked to repeat the initial survey of the 10 visual fields using the consensus statement to formulate their answers. Twenty-six neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the initial survey. On average, there were 7.5 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 3.17), a description of only the location in 24.6% (SD 0.19), and an undecided response in 6.15% (SD 4.13). Twenty-two neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the creation of a consensus statement which included 24 types of abnormalities with specific definitions. Twenty-three neuro-ophthalmologists repeated the survey using the consensus statement. On average, in the repeated survey, there were 5.9 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 1.79), a description of only the location in 0.004% (SD 0.01), and an undecided response in 3.07% (SD 2.11%). Relative to the first survey, there was a significant improvement in the use of specific and decisive terminology. The study confirmed a great degree of variability in the use of terminology to describe automated visual field abnormalities. The creation of a consensus statement was associated with improved use of specific terminology. Future efforts may be warranted to further standardize terminology and definitions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A multitude of terms have been used to describe automated visual field abnormalities. To date, there is no universally accepted system of definitions or guidelines. Variability among clinicians creates the risk of miscommunication and the compromise of patient care. The purposes of this study were to 1) assess the degree of consistency among a group of neuro-ophthalmologists in the description of visual field abnormalities and 2) to create a consensus statement with standardized terminology and definitions.
METHODS
In phase one of the study, all neuro-ophthalmologists in Israel were asked to complete a survey in which they described the abnormalities in 10 selected automated visual field tests. In phase 2 of the study, the authors created a national consensus statement on the terminology and definitions for visual field abnormalities using a modified Delphi method. In phase 3, the neuro-ophthalmologists were asked to repeat the initial survey of the 10 visual fields using the consensus statement to formulate their answers.
RESULTS
Twenty-six neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the initial survey. On average, there were 7.5 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 3.17), a description of only the location in 24.6% (SD 0.19), and an undecided response in 6.15% (SD 4.13). Twenty-two neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the creation of a consensus statement which included 24 types of abnormalities with specific definitions. Twenty-three neuro-ophthalmologists repeated the survey using the consensus statement. On average, in the repeated survey, there were 5.9 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 1.79), a description of only the location in 0.004% (SD 0.01), and an undecided response in 3.07% (SD 2.11%). Relative to the first survey, there was a significant improvement in the use of specific and decisive terminology.
CONCLUSIONS
The study confirmed a great degree of variability in the use of terminology to describe automated visual field abnormalities. The creation of a consensus statement was associated with improved use of specific terminology. Future efforts may be warranted to further standardize terminology and definitions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36255113
doi: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000001622
pii: 00041327-202212000-00008
pmc: PMC9662823
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
483-488Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the North American Neuro-Opthalmology Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Wall M, Johnson CA. Principles and techniques of the examination of the visual sensory system. In: Walsh & Hoyt's Clinical Neuro-Ophthalmology. Vol 1. Sixth. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005:83–149.
Freitag SK, Tanking T. A nomenclature to describe the sequence of visual field defects in progressive thyroid eye disease-compressive optic neuropathy (an American ophthalmological society thesis). Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;213:293–305.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, Dontchev M, Gal RL, Beck RW. Visual field profile of optic neuritis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:330–337.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, Edwards MA, Bandermann SE, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:643–650.
Wall M, Johnson CA, Cello KE, Zamba KD, McDermott MP, Keltner JL. Visual field outcomes for the idiopathic intracranial hypertension treatment trial (IIHTT). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:805–812.
Yousefi S, Goldbaum MH, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA, Bowd C. Recognizing patterns of visual field loss using unsupervised machine learning. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2014;2014:90342M.