Cargando…

Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature

PURPOSE: There is growing interest in functional testing for early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (iAMD). However, systematic evaluation of existing clinical functional tests is lacking. This systematic review examines evidence for using clinical automated perimetry in routine assessm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trinh, Matt, Kalloniatis, Michael, Nivison‐Smith, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12919
_version_ 1784751158294740992
author Trinh, Matt
Kalloniatis, Michael
Nivison‐Smith, Lisa
author_facet Trinh, Matt
Kalloniatis, Michael
Nivison‐Smith, Lisa
author_sort Trinh, Matt
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: There is growing interest in functional testing for early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (iAMD). However, systematic evaluation of existing clinical functional tests is lacking. This systematic review examines evidence for using clinical automated perimetry in routine assessment of early/iAMD. RECENT FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and Embase were searched from inception to October 2020 to answer, is there evidence of visual field defects in early/iAMD, and if so, are early/iAMD visual field defects linked to real‐world patient outcomes? Articles using clinical automated perimetry (commercially accessible and non‐modified devices/protocols) were included. Microperimetry was excluded as this has yet to be incorporated into clinical guidelines. The primary outcome was global visual field indices including mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), mean sensitivity (MS) and frequency of defects. The secondary outcome was any real‐world patient outcome including quality of life and/or activities of daily living indices. Twenty‐six studies were eligible for inclusion and all studies were observational. There was consistent evidence of worsened MD, PSD, MS and frequency of defects for early/iAMD compared to normal eyes under photopic, low‐photopic and scotopic conditions. Meta‐analysis of studies using standard automated perimetry (SAP) under photopic conditions revealed worsened MD (−1.52dB [−2.27, −0.78 dB]) and MS (−1.47dB [−2, −0.94 dB]) in early/iAMD compared to normal eyes, representing large statistical effect sizes but non‐clinically meaningful reductions. There was insufficient data for meta‐analyses regarding other clinical automated perimetry protocols. Only one study assessed a real‐world patient outcome (on‐road driving performance), with no significant link to visual field outcomes in early/iAMD. SUMMARY: Significant reduction of global visual field indices is present in early/iAMD, but not clinically meaningful using SAP under photopic conditions. Translational relevance of visual field outcomes to patient outcomes in early/iAMD remains unclear. Thus, SAP under photopic conditions is unlikely to be useful for routine assessment of early/iAMD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9300202
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93002022022-07-21 Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature Trinh, Matt Kalloniatis, Michael Nivison‐Smith, Lisa Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Review Article PURPOSE: There is growing interest in functional testing for early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (iAMD). However, systematic evaluation of existing clinical functional tests is lacking. This systematic review examines evidence for using clinical automated perimetry in routine assessment of early/iAMD. RECENT FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and Embase were searched from inception to October 2020 to answer, is there evidence of visual field defects in early/iAMD, and if so, are early/iAMD visual field defects linked to real‐world patient outcomes? Articles using clinical automated perimetry (commercially accessible and non‐modified devices/protocols) were included. Microperimetry was excluded as this has yet to be incorporated into clinical guidelines. The primary outcome was global visual field indices including mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), mean sensitivity (MS) and frequency of defects. The secondary outcome was any real‐world patient outcome including quality of life and/or activities of daily living indices. Twenty‐six studies were eligible for inclusion and all studies were observational. There was consistent evidence of worsened MD, PSD, MS and frequency of defects for early/iAMD compared to normal eyes under photopic, low‐photopic and scotopic conditions. Meta‐analysis of studies using standard automated perimetry (SAP) under photopic conditions revealed worsened MD (−1.52dB [−2.27, −0.78 dB]) and MS (−1.47dB [−2, −0.94 dB]) in early/iAMD compared to normal eyes, representing large statistical effect sizes but non‐clinically meaningful reductions. There was insufficient data for meta‐analyses regarding other clinical automated perimetry protocols. Only one study assessed a real‐world patient outcome (on‐road driving performance), with no significant link to visual field outcomes in early/iAMD. SUMMARY: Significant reduction of global visual field indices is present in early/iAMD, but not clinically meaningful using SAP under photopic conditions. Translational relevance of visual field outcomes to patient outcomes in early/iAMD remains unclear. Thus, SAP under photopic conditions is unlikely to be useful for routine assessment of early/iAMD. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-11-29 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9300202/ /pubmed/34843120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12919 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Review Article
Trinh, Matt
Kalloniatis, Michael
Nivison‐Smith, Lisa
Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title_full Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title_fullStr Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title_full_unstemmed Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title_short Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature
title_sort should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age‐related macular degeneration (amd)? a systematic review of current literature
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.12919
work_keys_str_mv AT trinhmatt shouldclinicalautomatedperimetrybeconsideredforroutinefunctionalassessmentofearlyintermediateagerelatedmaculardegenerationamdasystematicreviewofcurrentliterature
AT kalloniatismichael shouldclinicalautomatedperimetrybeconsideredforroutinefunctionalassessmentofearlyintermediateagerelatedmaculardegenerationamdasystematicreviewofcurrentliterature
AT nivisonsmithlisa shouldclinicalautomatedperimetrybeconsideredforroutinefunctionalassessmentofearlyintermediateagerelatedmaculardegenerationamdasystematicreviewofcurrentliterature