ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2021
An Evaluation of a New 24-2 Metric for Detecting Early Central Glaucomatous Damage.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Visualising structural and functional characteristics distinguishing between newly diagnosed high-tension and low-tension glaucoma patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
- Rationale and Development of an OCT-Based Method for Detection of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy.Journal of glaucoma · 2022Article
- Detection of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- 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
- Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2 Perimetry to Diagnose Glaucoma Using OCT as an Independent Reference Standard.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Agreement between Compass Fundus Perimeter New Grid and 10-2 Testing Protocols for Detecting Central Visual Field Defects.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe sought to test the hypothesis that a recently proposed pattern standard deviation (PSD) metric, based upon the 24-2 visual field (VF) test, as well as the PSD of the 10-2 VF, will miss central glaucomatous damage confirmed with an objective structure-function method.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsA glaucoma (G) group (70 eyes/patients) diagnosed with glaucoma and a 24-2 mean deviation better than -6 dB and a healthy (H) group (45 eyes/patients) had 24-2 and 10-2 VFs and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans twice within 4 weeks. The PSD(C24-2), based upon the central 12 points of the 24-2, was compared with the PSD(10-2). To evaluate central damage (CD) in G eyes with normal PSD(C24-2) values, a post hoc analysis was combined with a CD reference standard (CD-RS), which was based upon an objective, topographic comparison between abnormal points on the 10-2 VF and OCT probability maps.
resultsThe 115 PSD(C24-2) and PSD(10-2) values were significantly correlated (Spearman correclation coefficient: rho = 0.55; P < .001) and the number of G eyes (19) identified as abnormal by the PSD(C24-2) was not significantly different from the number (22) identified by the PSD(10-2) (P = .15). However, based upon the CD-RS, 44 of 70 G eyes were classified as abnormal. The PSD(C24-2) missed 27 (61%) of these 44 eyes, and the PSD(10-2) missed 23 (52%) of these eyes. Post hoc analysis revealed clear CD in most of these eyes.
conclusionNeither the PSD(C24-2) nor the PSD(10-2) metric is good measure of early CD. Instead we recommend a topographic approach based upon OCT probability maps and a 10-2 VF.
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.