Article Text

Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children
  1. Department of Ophthalmology
  2. Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus
  3. Petah Tiqva, 49100, Israel
    1. Geneva, Switzerland

      Statistics from

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      Editor,—We have read with great interest the recent paper written by Safran et al1 on the feasibility of automated visual field examinations in children between 5 and 8 years of age.

      It is very important to know that all the children at this age did remarkably well regarding both the duration of the automated visual field examination and the reliability of the answers, using an Octopus 2000R perimeter with a two level strategy. However, a preliminary familiarisation with a specially designed adaptation program was found to be mandatory with children aged 7 years or under.

      I would like to point out our good experience with the Humphrey 120 full field screening test in children with previous retinopathy of prematurity at the age of 10 years. There was no need for a preliminary adaptation phase, and this test was found to be reliable and reproducible in all these children. The data are presented in our paper, published in the BJO in 1995.2



      Editor,—I very much appreciate the interest shown by Kremer and Yassur in our article on the feasibility of automated perimetry in children between 5 and 8 years of age. I am pleased that their own observations with 10-year-old children were in accordance with some of our findings. Moreover, I believe that their excellent paper illustrated well the clinical value of computerised perimetry in children. There is an obvious need for assessing the limits of such procedures in very young patients, and defining reference values.