Which glaucoma patients benefit from 10-2 visual field testing? Proposing the functional vulnerability zone framework

References

• Phu J, Agar A, Wang H et al. Management of open-angle glaucoma by primary eye-care practitioners: toward a personalised medicine approach. Clin Exp Optom 2021; 104: 367–384. doi:10.1111/cxo.13114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prum BE Jr., Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern((R)) guidelines. Ophthalmology 2016; 123: 41–P111. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee GA, Kong GYX, Liu CH. Visual fields in glaucoma: where are we now? Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2023; 51: 162–169. doi:10.1111/ceo.14210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC et al. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 986–1002. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Khuu SK, Yapp M et al. The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 313–332. doi:10.1111/cxo.12551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiefer U, Papageorgiou E, Sample PA et al. Spatial pattern of glaucomatous visual field loss obtained with regionally condensed stimulus arrangements. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2010; 51: 5685–5689. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-5067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJ et al. Comparison of 24-2 and 30-2 perimetry in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol 1999; 19: 100–108. doi:10.1097/00041327-199906000-00004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijl A, Patella VM, Chong LX et al. A New SITA perimetric threshold testing algorithm: construction and a multicenter clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol 2019; 198: 154–165. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Khuu SK, Agar A et al. Clinical evaluation of Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-faster compared with Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-standard in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2019; 208: 251–264. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.08.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumberg DM, De Moraes CG, Prager AJ et al. Association between undetected 10-2 visual field damage and vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135: 742–747. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki Y, Sugisaki K, Araie M et al. Relationship between vision-related quality of life and central 10 degrees of the binocular integrated visual field in advanced glaucoma. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 14990. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50677-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Lin C, Waisbourd M et al. The impact of visual field clusters on performance-based measures and vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 163: 45–52. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.12.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White A, Goldberg I. Australian and New Zealand glaucoma interest group and the Royal Australian and New Zealand college of ophthalmologists guidelines for the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects by ophthalmologists and optometrists in Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014; 42: 107–117. doi:10.1111/ceo.12270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traynis I, De Moraes CG, Raza AS et al. Prevalence and nature of early glaucomatous defects in the central 10 degrees of the visual field. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014; 132: 291–297. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Moraes CG, Hood DC, Thenappan A et al. 24-2 visual fields miss central defects shown on 10-2 tests in glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives, and early glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2017; 124: 1449–1456. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West ME, Sharpe GP, Hutchison DM et al. Value of 10-2 visual field testing in glaucoma patients with early 24-2 visual field loss. Ophthalmology 2021; 128: 545–553. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.08.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan-Mee M, Karin Tran MT, Pensyl D et al. Prevalence, features, and severity of glaucomatous visual field loss measured with the 10-2 achromatic threshold visual field test. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 168: 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2016.05.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN et al. Performance of the 10-2 and 24-2 visual field tests for detecting central visual field abnormalities in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2018; 196: 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbach A, Ang GS, Camp AS et al. Qualitative evaluation of the 10-2 and 24-2 visual field tests for detecting central visual field abnormalities in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2021; 229: 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2021.02.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C test grids for identifying central visual field defects in glaucoma and suspect patients. Ophthalmology 2021; 128: 1405–1416. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.03.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Ability of 24-2C and 24-2 grids to identify central visual field defects and structure-function concordance in glaucoma and suspects. Am J Ophthalmol 2020; 219: 317–331. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.06.024.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu Z, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN et al. Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 visual fields for detecting progressive central visual loss in glaucoma eyes with early central abnormalities. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2019; 2: 95–102. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2019.01.003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Susanna FN, Melchior B, Paula JS et al. Variability and power to detect progression of different visual field patterns. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2021; 4: 617–623. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2021.04.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mikelberg FS, Drance SM. The mode of progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1984; 98: 443–445. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(84)90128-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner EB, Drance SM, Schulzer M. Trabeculectomy and the progression of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1977; 95: 1374–1377. doi:10.1001/archopht.1977.04450080084008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morin JD. Changes in the visual fields in glaucoma: static and kinetic perimetry in 2,000 patients. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1979; 77: 622–642.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nevalainen J, Paetzold J, Papageorgiou E et al. Specification of progression in glaucomatous visual field loss, applying locally condensed stimulus arrangements. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 247: 1659–1669. doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1134-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ly A, Wong E, Huang J et al. Glaucoma community care: does ongoing shared care work? Int J Integr Care 2020;20:5. doi:10.5334/ijic.5470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Yapp M, Hennessy MP et al. Impact of referral refinement on management of glaucoma suspects in Australia. Clin Exp Optom 2020; 103: 675–683. doi:10.1111/cxo.13030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Kalloniatis M. Clinical outcomes of the centre for eye health: an intra-professional optometry-led collaborative eye care clinic in Australia. Clin Exp Optom 2021; 104: 795–804. doi:10.1080/08164622.2021.1878821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. A strategy for Seeding Point Error Assessment for Retesting (SPEAR) in perimetry applied to normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2021; 221: 115–130. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.07.047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Viability of performing multiple 24-2 visual field examinations at the same clinical visit: the Frontloading Fields Study (FFS). Am J Ophthalmol 2021; 230: 48–59. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2021.04.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garway-Heath DF, Quartilho A, Prah P et al. Evaluation of visual field and imaging outcomes for glaucoma clinical trials (an American ophthalomological society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2017; 115: T4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG et al. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res 2013; 32: 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.08.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi AYJ, Nivison-Smith L, Phu J et al. Contrast sensitivity isocontours of the central visual field. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 11603. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-48026-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y et al. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2002; 43: 2654–2659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Goren D et al. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology 2014; 121: 1359–1369. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Khuu SK, Agar A et al. Visualizing the consistency of clinical characteristics that distinguish healthy persons, glaucoma suspect patients, and manifest glaucoma patients. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2020; 3: 274–287. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2020.04.009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rafla D, Khuu SK, Kashyap S et al. Visualising structural and functional characteristics distinguishing between newly diagnosed high-tension and low-tension glaucoma patients. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2023; 43: 771–787. doi:10.1111/opo.13129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang SH, Liu R. Four decades of ischemic penumbra and its implication for ischemic stroke. Transl Stroke Res 2021; 12: 937–945. doi:10.1007/s12975-021-00916-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:1029–1036. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.07.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aulhorn E, Harms H. Early visual field defects in glaucoma. Basel: Karger; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Westcott MC, McNaught AI, Crabb DP et al. High spatial resolution automated perimetry in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 452–459. doi:10.1136/bjo.81.6.452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoyama Y, Murata H, Tahara M et al. A method to measure visual field sensitivity at the edges of glaucomatous scotomata. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2014; 55: 2584–2591. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-13616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomairek RH, Aboud SA, Hassan M et al. Studying the role of 10-2 visual field test in different stages of glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 2020; 30: 706–713. doi:10.1177/1120672119836904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SC, Kung Y, Su D et al. Parafoveal scotoma progression in glaucoma: humphrey 10-2 versus 24-2 visual field analysis. Ophthalmology 2013; 120: 1546–1550. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao HL, Begum VU, Khadka D et al. Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: e0127233. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Numata T, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S et al. Detectability of visual field defects in glaucoma with high-resolution perimetry. J Glaucoma 2016; 25: 847–853. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall M, Zamba GKD, Artes PH. The effective dynamic ranges for glaucomatous visual field progression with standard automated perimetry and stimulus sizes III and V. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2018; 59: 439–445. doi:10.1167/iovs.17-22390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarti T, Moghadam M, Proudfoot JA et al. Agreement between 10-2 and 24-2C visual field test protocols for detecting glaucomatous central visual field defects. J Glaucoma 2021; 30: e285–e91. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar