rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1247-1250 doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.154922
  • Original Article
  • Clinical science

Saccade testing to distinguish between non-organic and organic visual-field restriction

  1. M S Zinkernagel1,
  2. N Pellanda1,
  3. A Kunz1,
  4. D S Mojon1,2
  1. 1
    Department of Neuro-Ophthalmology and Strabismology, Kantonsspital, St Gallen, Switzerland
  2. 2
    University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Professor D S Mojon, Department of Neuro-Ophthalmology and Strabismology, Kantonsspital, 9007 St Gallen, Switzerland; daniel.mojon{at}kssg.ch
  • Accepted 1 April 2009
  • Published Online First 2 June 2009

Abstract

Aim: The authors described and tested a simple bedside procedure to detect non-organic visual-field loss.

Methods: Prospective comparative observational case series of 16 patients with non-organic visual-field loss and 15 patients with organic visual-field loss were examined. Saccade patterns provoked by a stimulus outside the claimed visual field were assessed by a masked observer.

Results: Whereas, in organic visual-field defects, eye movements as noted by the observer were in small and erratic searching patterns towards the visual-field defect in all patients (15/15), most patients with non-organic visual-field loss (14/16) were able to jump directly to the presented red cap in one directional large saccade, although the stimulus was outside their stated visual field. The sensitivity of the saccade test in detection of non-organic visual-field loss by a masked observer was 87% (95% CI 60% to 97%) and the specificity was 100% (95% CI 75% to 100%). The positive predictive value for non-organic visual-field loss of the saccade test was 100%, and the negative predictive value was 90%.

Conclusions: The saccade test is a quick and reproducible examination to use and is largely independent of the patient’s willingness for cooperation. The authors believe that the test will be of value to clinicians on bedside evaluation when non-organic visual-field loss is suspected.

Footnotes

  • Funding The study was partly funded by the OPOS Foundation, St Gallen.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by Ethikkommission Kantonsspital St Gallen.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. bjo.2008.154922v1
    2. 93/9/1247 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.