Seok Hyun Bae1,2, Kayoung Yi3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Hallym BioEyeTech Research Center, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, 1, Singil-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07441, South Korea. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Hallym BioEyeTech Research Center, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, 1, Singil-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07441, South Korea. eyeyoung@hallym.or.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical utilities of the SITA-based central 24-2 and 30-2 threshold tests. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-five (365) eyes of 183 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients who had undergone both central 30-2 and 24-2 threshold testing using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) standard strategy were retrospectively reviewed. The tests were performed in patients with a minimum visual acuity of LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.3. We compared test time, fixation loss (%), false-positive error rate (%), and false-negative error rate (%), all of which are indices of reliability. We additionally compared the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI), all of which are indices of the visual field test. RESULTS: The mean age was 54.67 ± 14.95. MD, VFI, and fixation loss showed no significant difference between the 30-2 and 24-2 tests. As expected, 24-2 was shorter in duration: 5.64 ± 1.09 min versus 7.51 ± 1.38 min (p < .001), a 24.51 ± 9.45% difference. The false-positive error rate was significantly higher, but the false-negative error rate was lower, with the 24-2 threshold test (p = .009, p < .001). The PSD also was lower with 24-2 than with 30-2 (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The two tests' VFI and MD are comparable. The 24-2 test may be a more efficient examination for most patients in terms of test time. In the other relevant aspects, the two tests are not identical. Therefore, it would be advisable to tailor visual field testing to the individual patient.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical utilities of the SITA-based central 24-2 and 30-2 threshold tests. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-five (365) eyes of 183 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients who had undergone both central 30-2 and 24-2 threshold testing using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) standard strategy were retrospectively reviewed. The tests were performed in patients with a minimum visual acuity of LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.3. We compared test time, fixation loss (%), false-positive error rate (%), and false-negative error rate (%), all of which are indices of reliability. We additionally compared the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI), all of which are indices of the visual field test. RESULTS: The mean age was 54.67 ± 14.95. MD, VFI, and fixation loss showed no significant difference between the 30-2 and 24-2 tests. As expected, 24-2 was shorter in duration: 5.64 ± 1.09 min versus 7.51 ± 1.38 min (p < .001), a 24.51 ± 9.45% difference. The false-positive error rate was significantly higher, but the false-negative error rate was lower, with the 24-2 threshold test (p = .009, p < .001). The PSD also was lower with 24-2 than with 30-2 (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The two tests' VFI and MD are comparable. The 24-2 test may be a more efficient examination for most patients in terms of test time. In the other relevant aspects, the two tests are not identical. Therefore, it would be advisable to tailor visual field testing to the individual patient.