The authors present a prospective survey of neuro-ophthalmologists. The survey comprised of 10 visual fields. The selection of visual fields for the survey aimed for variety and excluded classic neuro-ophthalmology visual field defects, e.g. hemianopia, nasal step. The survey was anonymous and requested that participants describe the defect in free text. A follow-up study six months later included the same visual fields along with multiple-choice descriptive terms based on the first-round descriptions. A modified Delphi was used to agree a consensus statement, on which participants voted. The a priori definition of consensus was >80% agreement. The survey of 10 visual fields was repeated following finalisation of the consensus statement. Twenty-six neuro-ophthalmologists completed the initial and follow-up survey. Twenty-two participated in the modified Delphi process with >90% agreement attained which comprised of 24 terms under six categories. Twenty-three completed the post consensus survey. Significant variability in description terminology of visual field defects was identified. The study was localised to one country, but the authors believe similar findings would apply in other regions. Acknowledgement is made that further revisions may be required if ambiguity remains. Use of these terminologies could help support better communication between different departments and colleagues.
Agreeing terminology for non-classic visual field abnormalities
Reviewed by Lauren Hepworth
A consensus statement on the terminology for automated visual field abnormalities.
CONTRIBUTOR
Lauren R Hepworth
University of Liverpool; Honorary Stroke Specialist Clinical Orthoptist, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust; St Helen’s and Knowsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
View Full Profile
