Fernanda N Susanna1, Bruna Melchior2, Jayter S Paula3, Michael V Boland4, Jonathan S Myers5, Sarah R Wellik6, Tobias Elze7, Louis R Pasquale8, Lucy Q Shen9, Robert Ritch10, Remo Susanna11, Donald C Hood12, Jeffrey M Liebmann13, Carlos Gustavo De Moraes14. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 2. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. 4. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 7. Schepens Eye Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Eye and Vision Research Institute of New York Eye and Ear Infirmary at Mount Sinai, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 9. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 11. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 12. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York City, New York. 13. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 14. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: cvd2109@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the variability and ability to detect visual field (VF) progression of 24-2, central 12 locations of the 24-2 and 10-2 VF tests in eyes with abnormal VFs. DESIGN: Retrospective, multisite cohort. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 52 806 24-2 and 11 966 10-2 VF tests from 7307 eyes from the Glaucoma Research Network database were analyzed. Only eyes with ≥ 5 visits and ≥ 2 years of follow-up were included. METHODS: Linear regression models were used to calculate the rates of mean deviation (MD) change (slopes), whereas their residuals were used to assess variability across the entire MD range. Computer simulations (n = 10 000) based on real MD residuals of our sample were performed to estimate power to detect significant progression (P < 5%) at various rates of MD change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time required to detect progression. RESULTS: For all 3 patterns, the MD variability was highest within the -5 to -20 decibel (dB) range and consistently lower with the 10-2 compared with 24-2 or central 24-2. Overall, time to detect confirmed significant progression at 80% power was the lowest with 10-2 VF, with a decrease of 14.6% to 18.5% when compared with 24-2 and a decrease of 22.9% to 26.5% when compared with central 24-2. CONCLUSIONS: Time to detect central VF progression was reduced with 10-2 MD compared with 24-2 and C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes in this large dataset, in part because 10-2 tests had lower variability. These findings contribute to current evidence of the potential value of 10-2 testing in the clinical management of patients with glaucoma and in clinical trial design.
PURPOSE: To compare the variability and ability to detect visual field (VF) progression of 24-2, central 12 locations of the 24-2 and 10-2 VF tests in eyes with abnormal VFs. DESIGN: Retrospective, multisite cohort. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 52 806 24-2 and 11 966 10-2 VF tests from 7307 eyes from the Glaucoma Research Network database were analyzed. Only eyes with ≥ 5 visits and ≥ 2 years of follow-up were included. METHODS: Linear regression models were used to calculate the rates of mean deviation (MD) change (slopes), whereas their residuals were used to assess variability across the entire MD range. Computer simulations (n = 10 000) based on real MD residuals of our sample were performed to estimate power to detect significant progression (P < 5%) at various rates of MD change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time required to detect progression. RESULTS: For all 3 patterns, the MD variability was highest within the -5 to -20 decibel (dB) range and consistently lower with the 10-2 compared with 24-2 or central 24-2. Overall, time to detect confirmed significant progression at 80% power was the lowest with 10-2 VF, with a decrease of 14.6% to 18.5% when compared with 24-2 and a decrease of 22.9% to 26.5% when compared with central 24-2. CONCLUSIONS: Time to detect central VF progression was reduced with 10-2 MD compared with 24-2 and C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes in this large dataset, in part because 10-2 tests had lower variability. These findings contribute to current evidence of the potential value of 10-2 testing in the clinical management of patients with glaucoma and in clinical trial design.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Sol La Bruna; Emmanouil Tsamis; Ari Leshno; Bruna Melchior; Jennifer Grossman; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2022-03-28
Authors: Angela Y Chang; Emmanouil Tsamis; Dana M Blumberg; Lama A Al-Aswad; George A Cioffi; Donald C Hood; Jeffrey M Liebmann; C G De Moraes Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.290