June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Detecting progression in the center of the visual field
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Mary K Durbin
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Thomas Callan
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Sophia Yu
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Robert Chang
    Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
  • Tin Aung
    Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  • Ian P Conner
    University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Gary C Lee
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Mary Durbin, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Thomas Callan, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Sophia Yu, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Robert Chang, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (C); Tin Aung, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (F); Ian P Conner, Ivantis (C), Ocugenix (S); Gary Lee, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3482. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mary K Durbin, Thomas Callan, Sophia Yu, Robert Chang, Tin Aung, Ian P Conner, Gary C Lee; Detecting progression in the center of the visual field. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3482.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : The 24-2 visual field test has limited ability to detect change in the center of the visual field (VF). One approach to detecting change is to apply the change limits estimated from the central points in repeated 24-2 scans to 10-2 scans. In this study we use short-term reproducibility data to determine the specificity of using the 24-2 inner zone change limits from the HFA guided progression analysis (GPA) to detect change in the 10-2 VF.

Methods : VFs were acquired from 74 eyes of 74 glaucoma subjects at 5 repeat visits within 4 months, using HFA™ II-i (ZEISS, Dublin, CA). At each visit, SITA Standard 10-2 and 24-2 VFs were acquired. Because the repeated visits occurred over a short period of time, any change observed in this data would by definition be a false positive.
In HFA, GPA change limits in the 24-2 field depend on location as well as baseline mean deviation (MD), and baseline pattern deviation (PD). For this study, we substituted 10-2 MD for the 24-2 MD. We plotted the correlation between the MDs to confirm that this was reasonable.
As in HFA GPA the first two scans in the series were averaged to create a baseline. The first and second follow-ups were compared to the baseline for each test point and the differences compared to the change limits used for the central portion of the 24-2 in the commercial version of GPA. False positive rates (FPR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled for all 74 patients and all 68 test points in the 10-2 for both follow-ups. Specificity was defined as 1 – FPR. GPA was not performed on test locations where the MD or PD are too poor(censoring), which would be denoted as "out of range" or "X" on the report and in the analyses. FPR was calculated two ways: pooling all points, and pooling only points not marked “X”.

Results : Mean age was 63.6 (35.7 to 79.6) years. Mean MD was -3.9 (-18.2 to 1.2) dB. Correlation of 24-2 MD with 10-2 MD showed an R^2 of 0.67, a slope of 0.89 and an offset of 0.19, so it is reasonable to substitute the MD from 10-2 to determine change limits. FPR was 0.47 (CI: 0.43 to 0.52) considering all 10064 pooled points and 0.51 (CI: 0.46 to 0.55) considering 9380 pooled valid points, consistent with specificity of ~95%.

Conclusions : Specificity was ~95% for detecting progression in 10-2 fields using limits established in the central portion of the 24-2, indicating that a simple GPA for 10-2 can be created using existing data.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.