2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.03.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C Test Grids for Identifying Central Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Suspect Patients

Abstract: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
12
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
1
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Participants were consecutively recruited from patients meeting these criteria, with data from 128 participants included in a previous study. 5 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants were consecutively recruited from patients meeting these criteria, with data from 128 participants included in a previous study. 5 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, we focussed on using quantitative data from clinician‐facing outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer and Cirrus optical coherence tomography, which again limits our generalisability to the outputs from these devices only. For instance, we used a 24‐2 visual field grid for our visual field quantitative metrics, which may miss some central defects that might be detected when using the 10‐2 or 24‐2C protocols 66–68 . As described in the literature, there may be qualitative, morphological differences between pressure‐defined phenotypes, which are not conducive to the analysis method used in the present study that might benefit from archetypal analysis examining patterns of loss, both structurally and functionally 69,70 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients’ visual field (perimetry) was assessed for each eye (with corrective lenses if necessary) using a 24-2C (SITA-Faster) test grids on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) which incorporates a selection of 10 distributed test points derived from the 10-2 into the 24-2 grid so that both the central and peripheral visual fields can be tested. It should be noted that the 24-2C test grid can identify the presence of a central visual field defect on similar global indices [e.g., mean deviation (MD)] to the 10-2 grid, the 10-2 grid providing a detailed description of the visual field defect (Phu & Kalloniatis, 2021 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%