TY - JOUR
T1 - Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC)
T2 - developing consensus and setting research priorities for perimetry in the management of children with glaucoma
AU - For the OPTIC Study Group
AU - Patel, Dipesh E.
AU - Cumberland, Phillippa M.
AU - Walters, Bronwen C.
AU - Abbott, Joseph
AU - Brookes, John
AU - Edmunds, Beth
AU - Khaw, Peng Tee
AU - Lloyd, Ian Christopher
AU - Papadopoulos, Maria
AU - Sung, Velota
AU - Cortina-Borja, Mario
AU - Rahi, Jugnoo S.
AU - Khaw, Peng Tee
AU - Walters, Bronwen
AU - Cumberland, Phillippa
AU - Russell-Eggitt, Isabelle
AU - Timms, Christine
AU - Brookes, John
AU - Moore, Anthony
AU - Papadopoulos, Maria
AU - Garway-Heath, David
AU - Viswanathan, Ananth
AU - Liasis, Alki
AU - Crabb, David
AU - Cortina-Borja, Mario
AU - Patel, Dipesh
AU - Rahi, Jugnoo
N1 - Funding Information:
Members of the expert panel were J Abbott, J Brookes, B Edmunds, PT Khaw, IC Lloyd, M Papadopoulos, and V Sung. Funded by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (GBDA) (grant no. OR2009-04e). PMC is supported by the Ulverscroft Foundation. DEP is supported in part by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Fellowship and an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. JSR is an NIHR Senior Investigator. BE is supported in part by an unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness and National Institute of Health P30 EY010572 Core Grant. The sponsor and funding organisation had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust/UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and UCL GOS Institute of Child Health/Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or Department of Health and Social Care. DEP had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Peng Tee Khaw3,7, Bronwen Walters2,4, Phillippa Cumberland1,2, Isabelle Russell-Eggitt4, Christine Timms12, John Brookes7, Anthony Moore4,13, Maria Papadopoulos7, David Garway-Heath12,13, Ananth Viswanathan12, Alki Liasis4, David Crabb14, Mario Cortina-Borja11, Dipesh Patel1,2,3, Jugnoo Rahi1,2,3,4
Funding Information:
Acknowledgements Members of the expert panel were J Abbott, J Brookes, B Edmunds, PT Khaw, IC Lloyd, M Papadopoulos, and V Sung. Funded by The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (GBDA) (grant no. OR2009-04e). PMC is supported by the Ulver-scroft Foundation. DEP is supported in part by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Fellowship and an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. JSR is an NIHR Senior Investigator. BE is supported in part by an unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness and National Institute of Health P30 EY010572 Core Grant. The sponsor and funding organisation had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust/UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and UCL GOS Institute of Child Health/Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or Department of Health and Social Care. DEP had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Background: Perimetry is important in the management of children with glaucoma, but there is limited evidence-based guidance on its use. We report an expert consensus-based study to update guidance and identify areas requiring further research. Methods: Experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi consensus process. Panel selection was based on clinical experience of managing children with glaucoma and UK-based training to minimise diversity of view due to healthcare setting. Questionnaires were delivered electronically, and analysed to establish ‘agreement’. Divergence of opinions was investigated and resolved where possible through further iterations. Results: 7/9 experts invited agreed to participate. Consensus (≥5/7 (71%) in agreement) was achieved for 21/26 (80.8%) items in 2 rounds, generating recommendations to start perimetry from approximately 7 years of age (IQR: 6.75–7.25), and use qualitative methods in conjunction with automated reliability indices to assess test quality. There was a lack of agreement about defining progressive visual field (VF) loss and methods for implementing perimetry longitudinally. Panel members highlighted the importance of informing decisions based upon individual circumstances—from gauging maturity/capability when selecting tests and interpreting outcomes, to accounting for specific clinical features (e.g. poor IOP control and/or suspected progressive VF loss) when making decisions about frequency of testing. Conclusions: There is commonality of expert views in relation to implementing perimetry and interpreting test quality in the management of children with glaucoma. However, there remains a lack of agreement about defining progressive VF loss, and utilising perimetry over an individuals’ lifetime, highlighting the need for further research.
AB - Background: Perimetry is important in the management of children with glaucoma, but there is limited evidence-based guidance on its use. We report an expert consensus-based study to update guidance and identify areas requiring further research. Methods: Experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi consensus process. Panel selection was based on clinical experience of managing children with glaucoma and UK-based training to minimise diversity of view due to healthcare setting. Questionnaires were delivered electronically, and analysed to establish ‘agreement’. Divergence of opinions was investigated and resolved where possible through further iterations. Results: 7/9 experts invited agreed to participate. Consensus (≥5/7 (71%) in agreement) was achieved for 21/26 (80.8%) items in 2 rounds, generating recommendations to start perimetry from approximately 7 years of age (IQR: 6.75–7.25), and use qualitative methods in conjunction with automated reliability indices to assess test quality. There was a lack of agreement about defining progressive visual field (VF) loss and methods for implementing perimetry longitudinally. Panel members highlighted the importance of informing decisions based upon individual circumstances—from gauging maturity/capability when selecting tests and interpreting outcomes, to accounting for specific clinical features (e.g. poor IOP control and/or suspected progressive VF loss) when making decisions about frequency of testing. Conclusions: There is commonality of expert views in relation to implementing perimetry and interpreting test quality in the management of children with glaucoma. However, there remains a lack of agreement about defining progressive VF loss, and utilising perimetry over an individuals’ lifetime, highlighting the need for further research.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108869585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85108869585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41433-021-01584-0
DO - 10.1038/s41433-021-01584-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 34155365
AN - SCOPUS:85108869585
SN - 0950-222X
VL - 36
SP - 1281
EP - 1287
JO - Transactions of the Ophthalmological Societies of the United Kingdom
JF - Transactions of the Ophthalmological Societies of the United Kingdom
IS - 6
ER -