March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
A Critical Evaluation of Evidence for Visual Field Improvement in the CIGTS
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David C. Musch
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Leslie M. Niziol
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Brenda W. Gillespie
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  David C. Musch, None; Leslie M. Niziol, None; Brenda W. Gillespie, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI Grant # R21 EY020912
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 4479. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      David C. Musch, Leslie M. Niziol, Brenda W. Gillespie; A Critical Evaluation of Evidence for Visual Field Improvement in the CIGTS. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):4479.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To evaluate whether the occurrences of visual field (VF) improvement in CIGTS participants is real or due to random variation.

Methods: : Humphrey 24-2 full threshold VF tests obtained in the CIGTS on 607 enrolled subjects with newly-diagnosed open-angle glaucoma were inspected for change over follow-up in mean deviation (MD). Clinically substantial change (loss or improvement) was defined as any change from baseline of 3 or more decibels in MD. Baseline factors that have been reported to be predictive of long-term VF loss in the CIGTS (Musch DC et al., Ophthalmology 2009; 116:200-7) were inspected to determine the extent and direction of their association with VF improvement in exploratory repeated measures logistic regression models. SAS 9.2 Proc Genmod software was used for regression analyses.

Results: : The percentage of CIGTS participants who showed substantial VF improvement over time was similar to that showing VF loss through five years after initial treatment, after which VF loss became more frequent. For example, at 1, 3, and 5 years after initiation of treatment, substantial VF loss/improvement was observed in 6.6%/7.5%, 10.9%/12.7%, and 14.5%/13.9%, respectively. At seven years, occurrences of substantial VF loss (19.6%) were more frequent than VF improvement (13.5%). Significantly predictive factors for VF improvement from regression models included female sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17, 2.56], visit one year prior to cataract extraction (OR=0.11, 95% CI=0.02, 0.62), and an interaction between treatment and baseline MD in which those with VF improvement were more likely to be treated initially with surgery and, within treatment groups, more likely among those with more VF loss at baseline (a more negative MD). Several measures of IOP control during treatment were also predictive of VF improvement, including a lower mean IOP, lower minimum IOP, and a number of measures relating to maintenance of lower IOP throughout follow-up (e.g., proportion IOP<16 mmHg: OR=2.18, 95% CI = 1.21, 3.93).

Conclusions: : In the CIGTS, comparable percentages of participants demonstrated either substantial VF loss or improvement through five years after treatment initiation, after which the percentage that showed VF loss became more frequent. Predictive factors for VF improvement include some that are consonant with the postulate that VF improvement is real, such as measures of better IOP control over time.

Keywords: visual fields • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: outcomes/complications 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.