Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.

Aims: To investigate the agreement in results between frequency doubling technology (FDT) and the conventional automated static perimeter in eyes with normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and high tension glaucoma (HTG). Methods: 72 eyes of 36 patients, who had two or more experiences with the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) program C30-2, were examined with the screening C-20-1 program of FDT. The result of FDT at each of the 17 stimulus points was graded as one of four categories. 58 out of 76 test points of HFA were assigned to one of the 17 clusters corresponding to FDT test points. Each cluster was represented as the lowest (scotoma of HFA) or the highest (threshold of HFA) probability symbol of total deviation (TD) of the HFA test points included in the cluster. The agreement between scotoma/threshold of HFA and FDT results was evaluated for NTG and HTG. Results: In a total of 65 eyes, the Spearman coefficients between the FDT and HFA (threshold/scotoma of HFA) were 0.599 and 0.515 (p<0.0001), respectively. In the HFA mean deviation matched 20 HTG eyes and 20 NTG eyes, the number of points with abnormal FDT results were 102 and 62 in eyes with HTG and NTG, respectively. The eyes with HTG had more abnormal FDT results than NTG eyes (p=0.0014, Mann-Whitney U test). The kappa coefficient between FDT and threshold of HFA in eyes with HTG and NTG was 0.288 and 0.520, respectively, and the agreement between FDT and scotoma of HFA was 0.480 and 0.439, respectively. Conclusions: The best agreement of the results of FDT and HFA was observed in eyes with NTG using threshold of HFA. The eyes with HTG showed lower agreement with more abnormal points in FDT results, which suggests enough sensitivity of FDT in eyes with NTG, and higher sensitivity of FDT in eyes with HTG.

Background Perimetry is important in the management of children with glaucoma, but there is limited evidence-based guidance on its use. We report an expert consensus-based study to update guidance and identify areas requiring further research. Methods Experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi consensus process. Panel selection was based on clinical experience of managing children with glaucoma and UK-based training to minimise diversity of view due to healthcare setting. Questionnaires were delivered electronically, and analysed to establish ‘agreement’. Divergence of opinions was investigated and resolved where possible through further iterations. Results 7/9 experts invited agreed to participate. Consensus (≥5/7 (71%) in agreement) was achieved for 21/26 (80.8%) items in 2 rounds, generating recommendations to start perimetry from approximately 7 years of age (IQR: 6.75–7.25), and use qualitative methods in conjunction with automated reliability indices to assess test quality. There was a lack of agreement about defining progressive visual field (VF) loss and methods for implementing perimetry longitudinally. Panel members highlighted the importance of informing decisions based upon individual circumstances—from gauging maturity/capability when selecting tests and interpreting outcomes, to accounting for specific clinical features (e.g. poor IOP control and/or suspected progressive VF loss) when making decisions about frequency of testing. Conclusions There is commonality of expert views in relation to implementing perimetry and interpreting test quality in the management of children with glaucoma. However, there remains a lack of agreement about defining progressive VF loss, and utilising perimetry over an individuals’ lifetime, highlighting the need for further research.