Translational vision science & technology · 2025
Comparison of Methods for Visual Field Progression in Eyes With Central Visual Field Defects.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Nishida Takashi, Weinreb Robert N, Walker Evan, Girkin Christopher A, Fazio Massimo A, Liebmann Jeffrey M, Moghimi Sasan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the agreement of various criteria for visual field (VF) progression in eyes with central VF defects, and to evaluate their performance in simulation datasets with and without age-related and glaucomatous change.
METHODS: A total of 282 eyes of 197 primary open-angle glaucoma patients with 10-2 central VF defect at baseline with two or more years' follow-up and five or more visits for both 10-2 and 24-2 VF were included. Various progression detection methods were used: 10-2 clustered pointwise linear regression (PLR), 10-2 VF mean deviation (MD), 24-2 central VF mean total deviation (MTD), 24-2 VF MD, 24-2 PLR, guided progression analysis, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, and Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study scores. Progression was defined as a binary outcome at the final visit: ≤-0.7 dB/year for 10-2 VF MD and ≤-0.5 or ≤-1.0 dB/year for 24-2 central VF MTD. Pairwise agreements were evaluated using Cohen's kappa. To further assess the detection performance under controlled conditions, two simulation datasets were constructed: one incorporating realistic progression and another with no true change. The t-statistics from ordinary least squares regression were used to compute receiver operating characteristic curves and normalized partial area under the curves.
RESULTS: Central progression was more frequently detected with 10-2 VF: 10-2 VF MD (35.1%) and 10-2 clustered PLR (20.6%) versus 24-2 central VF MTD at ≤-0.5 dB/y (17.7%) and ≤-1.0 dB/y (3.2%). Global progression was observed in 17.7% to 30.5%. The agreement among methods ranged from 67.0% to 85.1%, with kappas values of 0.11-0.25 between 10-2 and 24-2 MTD methods and 0.22-0.54 between 10-2 and 24-2 methods. Simulation analyses confirmed that 10-2 VF MD had the highest partial AUC across specificity levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement among methods for central VF progression monitoring is low to moderate. Concordance between 24-2 and 10-2 VF methods is variable, with 10-2 detecting a higher proportion of central progression.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Incorporating 10-2 VF testing alongside 24-2 is essential, as relying solely on 24-2 VF may underestimate central VF progression.
METHODS: A total of 282 eyes of 197 primary open-angle glaucoma patients with 10-2 central VF defect at baseline with two or more years' follow-up and five or more visits for both 10-2 and 24-2 VF were included. Various progression detection methods were used: 10-2 clustered pointwise linear regression (PLR), 10-2 VF mean deviation (MD), 24-2 central VF mean total deviation (MTD), 24-2 VF MD, 24-2 PLR, guided progression analysis, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, and Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study scores. Progression was defined as a binary outcome at the final visit: ≤-0.7 dB/year for 10-2 VF MD and ≤-0.5 or ≤-1.0 dB/year for 24-2 central VF MTD. Pairwise agreements were evaluated using Cohen's kappa. To further assess the detection performance under controlled conditions, two simulation datasets were constructed: one incorporating realistic progression and another with no true change. The t-statistics from ordinary least squares regression were used to compute receiver operating characteristic curves and normalized partial area under the curves.
RESULTS: Central progression was more frequently detected with 10-2 VF: 10-2 VF MD (35.1%) and 10-2 clustered PLR (20.6%) versus 24-2 central VF MTD at ≤-0.5 dB/y (17.7%) and ≤-1.0 dB/y (3.2%). Global progression was observed in 17.7% to 30.5%. The agreement among methods ranged from 67.0% to 85.1%, with kappas values of 0.11-0.25 between 10-2 and 24-2 MTD methods and 0.22-0.54 between 10-2 and 24-2 methods. Simulation analyses confirmed that 10-2 VF MD had the highest partial AUC across specificity levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement among methods for central VF progression monitoring is low to moderate. Concordance between 24-2 and 10-2 VF methods is variable, with 10-2 detecting a higher proportion of central progression.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Incorporating 10-2 VF testing alongside 24-2 is essential, as relying solely on 24-2 VF may underestimate central VF progression.