Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UC San Diego

UC San Diego Previously Published Works bannerUC San Diego

Qualitative Evaluation of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.

  • Author(s): Orbach, Adi;
  • Ang, Ghee Soon;
  • Camp, Andrew S;
  • Welsbie, Derek S;
  • Medeiros, Felipe A;
  • Girkin, Christopher A;
  • Fazio, Massimo A;
  • Oh, Won Hyuk;
  • Weinreb, Robert N;
  • Zangwill, Linda M;
  • Wu, Zhichao
  • et al.

Published Web Location

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8379296/
No data is associated with this publication.
Abstract

Purpose

To examine whether glaucomatous central visual field abnormalities can be more effectively detected using a qualitative, expert evaluation of the 10-2 test compared with the topographically corresponding central 12 locations of the 24-2 test (C24-2).

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Eyes with a glaucomatous optic nerve appearance or ocular hypertension (n = 523) and healthy eyes (n = 107) were included as cases and control subjects, respectively. The 10-2 and C24-2 visual field results of all eyes were graded by 4 glaucoma specialists for the probability that central visual field abnormalities were present.

Results

The sensitivity of the 10-2 and C24-2 tests for detecting the cases at 95% specificity were not significantly different (e.g., 32.2% and 31.4%, respectively, for grader 1, P = .87; all graders P ≥ .25). At 95% specificity, the pattern standard deviation values from these tests had a similar sensitivity to the qualitative evaluation for the C24-2 test for all graders (P ≥ .083), but it had a significantly higher sensitivity than the qualitative evaluation for the 10-2 test for 3 graders (P ≤ .016).

Conclusions

The similarity in performance of the 10-2 and C24-2 test suggests that the increased sampling density of the former does not significantly improve the detection of central visual field abnormalities, even when based on expert assessment. These findings should not be taken to mean that the 10-2 test is not useful, but it underscores the need for its utility to be clearly established before incorporating it as routine glaucoma standard of care.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Item not freely available? Link broken?
Report a problem accessing this item