儿童视野测试诊断的准确性和可行性:系统综述。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1111/opo.13449
Maria Riaz, Nicole C Ross, D Luisa Mayer
{"title":"儿童视野测试诊断的准确性和可行性:系统综述。","authors":"Maria Riaz, Nicole C Ross, D Luisa Mayer","doi":"10.1111/opo.13449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Alternative non-standard paediatric visual field (VF) tests have been developed to address the challenges associated with standard approaches. However, diagnostic accuracy of these new VF tests has not yet been rigorously evaluated. This systematic review aims to explore diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard VF tests in paediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following databases were searched for English language studies comparing a non-standard paediatric VF test to standard methods, such as standard automated perimetry (SAP), manual kinetic perimetry (MKP) and confrontation testing (CT): EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, VisionCite, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, African Index Medicus, LILACS, Trip and grey literature databases. Studies included were of children ≤18 years old with suspected or known VF defects (n > 3). Case reports, case series, editorials and letters were excluded. This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies (n = 2074 children, age range: 2 months to 18 years) published between 1990 and 2023 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Twenty index tests were reported, sorted into four categories of methods: behavioural/observational (5), electrophysiological (2), modifications of standard perimetry (11) and eye tracking (2). Risk of bias, based on the QUADAS-2 results, was unclear or high for most studies. Sensitivities of 10 studies (behavioural/observational [2]; electrophysiological [2]; modifications of standard perimetry [2] and eye tracking [4]) were 60%-100%, 75%, 80%-94% and 70%-100%, and specificities were 98%-100%, 86%-88%, 68%-100% and 50%-100%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Alternative non-standard paediatric VF tests, and behavioural/observational methods in particular, show potential for adequate diagnostic accuracy and feasibility, although limited to certain conditions and ages. Studies with complete reporting and low risk of bias are needed to determine the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard paediatric VF tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":19522,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","volume":" ","pages":"726-741"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of paediatric visual field tests: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Riaz, Nicole C Ross, D Luisa Mayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/opo.13449\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Alternative non-standard paediatric visual field (VF) tests have been developed to address the challenges associated with standard approaches. However, diagnostic accuracy of these new VF tests has not yet been rigorously evaluated. This systematic review aims to explore diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard VF tests in paediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following databases were searched for English language studies comparing a non-standard paediatric VF test to standard methods, such as standard automated perimetry (SAP), manual kinetic perimetry (MKP) and confrontation testing (CT): EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, VisionCite, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, African Index Medicus, LILACS, Trip and grey literature databases. Studies included were of children ≤18 years old with suspected or known VF defects (n > 3). Case reports, case series, editorials and letters were excluded. This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies (n = 2074 children, age range: 2 months to 18 years) published between 1990 and 2023 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Twenty index tests were reported, sorted into four categories of methods: behavioural/observational (5), electrophysiological (2), modifications of standard perimetry (11) and eye tracking (2). Risk of bias, based on the QUADAS-2 results, was unclear or high for most studies. Sensitivities of 10 studies (behavioural/observational [2]; electrophysiological [2]; modifications of standard perimetry [2] and eye tracking [4]) were 60%-100%, 75%, 80%-94% and 70%-100%, and specificities were 98%-100%, 86%-88%, 68%-100% and 50%-100%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Alternative non-standard paediatric VF tests, and behavioural/observational methods in particular, show potential for adequate diagnostic accuracy and feasibility, although limited to certain conditions and ages. Studies with complete reporting and low risk of bias are needed to determine the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard paediatric VF tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"726-741\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13449\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13449","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:已经开发了替代的非标准儿科视野(VF)测试,以解决与标准方法相关的挑战。然而,这些新的VF测试的诊断准确性尚未得到严格的评估。本系统综述旨在探讨非标准VF检测在儿科患者中的诊断准确性和可行性。方法:检索以下数据库,比较非标准儿科VF检测与标准方法(如标准自动视野测量(SAP)、手动动力学视野测量(MKP)和对抗测试(CT))的英文研究:EMBASE、PubMed、Ovid MEDLINE、Web of Science、Scopus、VisionCite、Cochrane Library、ClinicalTrials.gov、African Index Medicus、LILACS、Trip和灰色文献数据库。研究纳入了≤18岁的儿童,怀疑或已知VF缺陷(n bbbb3)。病例报告、病例系列、社论和信件被排除在外。本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)工具评估偏倚风险。结果:1990年至2023年间发表的30项研究(n = 2074名儿童,年龄范围:2个月至18岁)符合纳入/排除标准。报告了20项指标测试,分为四类方法:行为/观察(5)、电生理(2)、标准视距矫正(11)和眼动追踪(2)。根据QUADAS-2结果,大多数研究的偏倚风险不明确或较高。10项研究的敏感性(行为/观察[2];电生理[2];标准视界检查[2]和眼动追踪[2]的修改值分别为60% ~ 100%、75%、80% ~ 94%和70% ~ 100%,特异性分别为98% ~ 100%、86% ~ 88%、68% ~ 100%和50% ~ 100%。结论:替代的非标准儿科VF测试,特别是行为/观察方法,显示出足够的诊断准确性和可行性的潜力,尽管仅限于某些条件和年龄。需要有完整报告和低偏倚风险的研究来确定非标准儿科VF检测的诊断准确性和可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of paediatric visual field tests: A systematic review.

Purpose: Alternative non-standard paediatric visual field (VF) tests have been developed to address the challenges associated with standard approaches. However, diagnostic accuracy of these new VF tests has not yet been rigorously evaluated. This systematic review aims to explore diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard VF tests in paediatric patients.

Methods: The following databases were searched for English language studies comparing a non-standard paediatric VF test to standard methods, such as standard automated perimetry (SAP), manual kinetic perimetry (MKP) and confrontation testing (CT): EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, VisionCite, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, African Index Medicus, LILACS, Trip and grey literature databases. Studies included were of children ≤18 years old with suspected or known VF defects (n > 3). Case reports, case series, editorials and letters were excluded. This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

Results: Thirty studies (n = 2074 children, age range: 2 months to 18 years) published between 1990 and 2023 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Twenty index tests were reported, sorted into four categories of methods: behavioural/observational (5), electrophysiological (2), modifications of standard perimetry (11) and eye tracking (2). Risk of bias, based on the QUADAS-2 results, was unclear or high for most studies. Sensitivities of 10 studies (behavioural/observational [2]; electrophysiological [2]; modifications of standard perimetry [2] and eye tracking [4]) were 60%-100%, 75%, 80%-94% and 70%-100%, and specificities were 98%-100%, 86%-88%, 68%-100% and 50%-100%, respectively.

Conclusions: Alternative non-standard paediatric VF tests, and behavioural/observational methods in particular, show potential for adequate diagnostic accuracy and feasibility, although limited to certain conditions and ages. Studies with complete reporting and low risk of bias are needed to determine the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of non-standard paediatric VF tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
13.80%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, first published in 1925, is a leading international interdisciplinary journal that addresses basic and applied questions pertinent to contemporary research in vision science and optometry. OPO publishes original research papers, technical notes, reviews and letters and will interest researchers, educators and clinicians concerned with the development, use and restoration of vision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信