Observational studyOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Fields for Detecting Progressive Central Visual Loss in Glaucoma Eyes with Early Central Abnormalities.
Observational study in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Treatment With Citicoline Eyedrops Reduce Progression in Glaucoma? The Results of a Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Trial
- Proportion of Fast Progressors in the Central versus Global Visual Field Across Varying Glaucoma Severity Groups.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Prospects for Neuroprotective Therapies in Glaucoma: Drug Targets and Emerging Clinical Strategies.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Structure-Function Relationship in Patients with Glaucoma Suspect: Diagnostic Value and Changes During Follow-up.Beyoglu eye journal · 2026Article
- Performance of General-Purpose Vision Language Models and Ophthalmology Foundation Models in Glaucoma Detection and Function Prediction.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- A Bayesian Hierarchical Longitudinal Model for Estimation of Central Visual Field Rates of Change in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Differential Impact of Central and Global Visual Field Progression on Quality of Life in Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Transformer-Based Deep Learning Prediction of 10-Degree Humphrey Visual Field Tests From 24-Degree Data.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Predicting 60-4 visual field tests using 3D facial reconstruction.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Fast Progressors in Glaucoma: Prevalence Based on Global and Central Visual Field Loss.Ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- Commentary: Rethinking 10-2 visual fields in early diagnosis of glaucoma for a glided glaucoma practice: The right choice to pick up a feeble noise?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Characteristics of Central Visual Field Progression in Eyes with Optic Disc Hemorrhage.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Investigation of progression pattern and associated risk factors in glaucoma patients with initial paracentral scotomas using Humphrey 10-2.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Qualitative Evaluation of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Disc Hemorrhages Are Associated With the Presence and Progression of Glaucomatous Central Visual Field Defects.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Observational
- The Relationship Between Intraocular Pressure and Rates of Central Versus Peripheral Visual Field Progression.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Observational
- Enhancing Detection of Glaucoma Progression: Utility of 24-2 Visual Field Central Points vs. 10-2 Visual Fields.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the ability of 10-2 visual field tests and central 12 locations of the 24-2 tests (C24-2) to detect central visual field progression in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Design: Observational cohort study. Participants: Three-hundred eyes of 180 participants with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Participants with both 10-2 and 24-2 tests performed on ≥3 visits over ≥1-year period were included to estimate the longitudinal variability of 10-2 and C24-2 visual field mean deviation (MD). The variability estimates were then used to reconstruct real-world visual field results by computer simulations, in a scenario where eyes had a baseline 10-2 and C24-2 MD was -2 dB and exhibited various rates of change (-0.25, -0.50, -0.75 and -1.00 dB/year), and the time to detect these changes were evaluated using trend-based analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Time required to detect progression. Results: Overall, the time to detect central visual field progression was reduced by 7-9% using the 10-2 compared to C24-2 MD values, equivalent to a total reduction of 0.1-0.3 dB lost. For example, 90% of eyes with a central 10-2 or C24-2 MD loss of -0.50 dB/year would be detected after 5.0 and 5.5 years of semi-annual testing respectively, or after 3.4 and 3.7 years respectively for eyes with a -1.00 dB/year loss. Conclusions: Trend-based analyses using 10-2 MD resulted in a mild reduction (7-9%) in the time to detect central visual field progression compared to C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Further studies are needed to determine whether other progression analyses can better exploit the increased sampling of 10-2 tests. These findings provide evidence-based guidance on the potential value-add of 10-2 testing in the clinical management of glaucoma patients.
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.