Value of 10-2 Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma Patients with Early 24-2 Visual Field Loss.

PURPOSE

To determine whether the 10-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer detected a higher proportion of abnormal visual fields compared with the 24-2 test in the central 10° of patients with early glaucomatous visual field damage.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with open-angle glaucoma and healthy control participants.

METHODS

All participants underwent a 24-2 and 10-2 test. Only the 12 central test locations of the 24-2 test were included to analyze equivalent visual field areas. The performance of the 2 tests was compared across 4 pointwise criteria: total deviation (TD) and pattern deviation (PD) analyses at the 5% and 2% levels. Analyses also were conducted for 2 pairs of follow-up tests, each performed 4 months apart.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), (2) sensitivity at identically matched specificity for the 4 criteria, (3) overlap (entire field and by quadrant) of abnormal visual fields with both tests, and (4) repeatability of the findings in 2 subsequent follow-up tests.

RESULTS

One eye each of 97 glaucoma patients (median mean deviation, -2.31 dB) and 65 control participants were included in the study. The AUCs for the 24-2 and 10-2 tests were not significantly different for any of the 4 criteria and ranged from 0.88 to 0.93 and from 0.91 to 0.94, respectively. At matched specificity, the sensitivity of the 24-2 test was significantly higher for all criteria except for PD analysis at 5%. In patients with an abnormal field with either test, the overlap varied from 60% to 86% depending on the criterion, whereas by quadrant, concordance ranged from 70% to 87%. Over the follow-up, the repeatability of test results (both 24-2 and 10-2 abnormal, either abnormal, or both normal) was achieved in 55% to 70% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of glaucoma patients with early damage with the 24-2 test, there was little evidence that adding the 10-2 test revealed additional undetected defects in the central visual field. It may be more prudent to reserve 10-2 testing for following up selected patients with higher risk of central visual field progression.