American journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Performance of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Zhichao, Medeiros Felipe A, Weinreb Robert N, Zangwill Linda M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the pattern standard deviation (PSD) values derived from the central 12 locations of the 24-2 visual field test (C24-2) to the entire 10-2 test for detecting central visual field abnormalities in eyes with, suspected of having, or at risk of having glaucoma.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional case-control study.
METHODS: Eyes with, suspected of having, or at risk of having glaucoma, based on masked grading of optic disc stereophotographs and/or ocular hypertension (intraocular pressure ≥ 22 mm Hg) were included as cases (n = 523). Eyes from healthy participants were included as controls (n = 107) to allow the 2 tests to be compared at matched specificities. The sensitivity to detect cases at 95% specificity using PSD values derived from the entire 10-2 test and C24-2 were compared.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of the 10-2 and C24-2 PSD values was not significantly different between the 10-2 and C24-2 at matched specificities (35.9% and 35.4% respectively; P = .900). There was also a substantial agreement between the cases detected by both methods (kappa = 0.80 ± 0.04), and a very strong association between the PSD values from the 2 methods (R2 = 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: 10-2 and 24-2 tests identified a similar number of eyes with, suspected of having, or at risk of having glaucoma as having central visual field abnormalities using PSD values. These findings do not mean that 10-2 tests are not useful, but highlight the need for further studies to determine the potential advantages of 10-2 tests through equivalent comparisons against 24-2 tests to ensure appropriate recommendations are made about its incorporation into the glaucoma standard of care.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional case-control study.
METHODS: Eyes with, suspected of having, or at risk of having glaucoma, based on masked grading of optic disc stereophotographs and/or ocular hypertension (intraocular pressure ≥ 22 mm Hg) were included as cases (n = 523). Eyes from healthy participants were included as controls (n = 107) to allow the 2 tests to be compared at matched specificities. The sensitivity to detect cases at 95% specificity using PSD values derived from the entire 10-2 test and C24-2 were compared.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of the 10-2 and C24-2 PSD values was not significantly different between the 10-2 and C24-2 at matched specificities (35.9% and 35.4% respectively; P = .900). There was also a substantial agreement between the cases detected by both methods (kappa = 0.80 ± 0.04), and a very strong association between the PSD values from the 2 methods (R2 = 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: 10-2 and 24-2 tests identified a similar number of eyes with, suspected of having, or at risk of having glaucoma as having central visual field abnormalities using PSD values. These findings do not mean that 10-2 tests are not useful, but highlight the need for further studies to determine the potential advantages of 10-2 tests through equivalent comparisons against 24-2 tests to ensure appropriate recommendations are made about its incorporation into the glaucoma standard of care.