ArticlePloS one2017
Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Visual Field Assessments Between the Humphrey Field Analyzer, Tempo, and Virtual Eye Elite Perimeters.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Trial
- Differential Effects of Corneal Biomechanics on Superficial and Deep Vessel Density and Their Association with Central Visual Function in Glaucoma Patients with Myopia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gap Analysis of Standard Automated Perimetry Concept Representation in Medical Terminologies.Journal of glaucoma · 2025Article
- Personalizing the Transition From 24-2 to 10-2 Visual Field Testing Using ARREST - A Simulation Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Improving glaucoma staging in clinical practice by combining the ICD-10 glaucoma severity classification system and optical coherence tomography.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Rationale and Development of an OCT-Based Method for Detection of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy.Journal of glaucoma · 2022Article
- Optical coherence tomography angiography in glaucoma: analysis of the vessel density-visual field sensitivity relationship.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Improving the Detection of Glaucoma and Its Progression: A Topographical Approach.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Article
- Disc Hemorrhages Are Associated With the Presence and Progression of Glaucomatous Central Visual Field Defects.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Observational
- Nasalization of Central Retinal Vessel Trunk Predicts Rapid Progression of Central Visual Field in Open-Angle Glaucoma.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Rapid Central Visual Field Progression Rate in Eyes with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Choroidal Microvasculature Dropout.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Association of Macular Visual Field Measurements With Glaucoma Staging Systems.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Four Questions for Every Clinician Diagnosing and Monitoring Glaucoma.Journal of glaucoma · 2018Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: General Overview.Journal of ophthalmology · 2018Review
- Central visual field in glaucoma: An updated review.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Longitudinal Structure-Function Relationship between Macular Vessel Density and Thickness and Central Visual Field in Early Glaucoma.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test.
methodsOne eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24-2 test was tested with both the HFA 10-2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24-2 test and the Octopus G1 program.
resultsThe mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24-2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10-2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10-2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24-2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001).
conclusionBoth HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24-2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.