ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Volumetric Analysis of Perimetry Tests to Guide Central Testing: The Functional Vulnerability Zone.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To use volumetric analysis applied to total deviation (TD) perimetric data to characterize the presence of residual sensitivity measurable using the 10-2 in lieu of the 24-2 test grid in glaucoma (the functional vulnerability zone [FVZ]) and develop a prototype end-user application for clinical guidance. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: Six hundred twenty-six pairs of Humphrey Field Analyzer 10-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Fast and 24-2 SITA-Faster test results of 160 subjects. Methods: Total deviation values located within 10° from fixation (10-2, 68 locations; 24-2, 12 locations) were extracted. Volumetric analysis was performed to calculate the difference in TD "volume" (10-2 - 24-2) for each pair of results. Then, 24-2 test locations were interpolated across the central 10° to obtain "equivalent" 10-2 test locations used to calculate number of test locations gained (10-2 - 24-2). A positive TD volume difference and positive gain represented the presence of an FVZ. Linear regression and principal components analysis were used to identify 24-2 test features that may predict the presence of an FVZ. Main Outcome Measures: Volumetric differences in visual field TD as a surrogate for a FVZ. Results: Visual field global indices and the number of central 24-2 defects predicted TD volume difference ( Conclusions: The FVZ offers a data-driven approach to identifying residual dynamic range using the 10-2 test grid. A prototype model for predicting the likelihood of 10-2 utility in progression analysis is proposed. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.