Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop an appropriate method of assessing visual field (VF) loss which reflects its functional consequences, this study aims to determine which method(s) of assessing VF best reflect mobility difficulty. SETTING: This cross-sectional observational study took place within a single primary care setting. Participants attended a single session at a University Eye Clinic, Cambridge, UK, with data collected by a single researcher (HS), a qualified optometrist. PARTICIPANTS: 50 adult participants with peripheral field impairment were recruited for this study. Individuals with conditions not primarily affecting peripheral visual function, such as macular degeneration, were excluded from the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants undertook three custom and one standard binocular VF tests assessing VF to 60°, and also integrated monocular threshold 24-2 visual fields (IVF). Primary VF outcomes were average mean threshold, percentage of stimuli seen and VF area. VF outcomes were compared with self-reported mobility function assessed with the Independent Mobility Questionnaire, and time taken and patient acceptability were also considered. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined which tests best predicted difficulty with mobility tasks. RESULTS: Greater VF loss was associated with greater self-reported mobility difficulty with all field paradigms (R(2) 0.38-0.48, all P<0.001). All four binocular tests were better than the IVF at predicting difficulty with at least three mobility tasks in ROC analysis. Mean duration of the tests ranged from 1 min 26 s (±9 s) for kinetic assessment to 9 min 23 s (±24 s) for IVF. CONCLUSIONS: The binocular VF tests extending to 60° eccentricity all relate similarly to self-reported mobility function, and slightly better than integrated monocular VFs. A kinetic assessment of VF area is quicker than and as effective at predicting mobility function as static threshold assessment.