From the Centre for Eye Research Australia (A.O., G.S.A., Z.W.), Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hamilton Glaucoma Center (A.S.C., D.S.W., W.H.O., R.N.W., L.M.Z.), Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Sep;229:26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.02.015. Epub 2021 Feb 21.
To examine whether glaucomatous central visual field abnormalities can be more effectively detected using a qualitative, expert evaluation of the 10-2 test compared with the topographically corresponding central 12 locations of the 24-2 test (C24-2).
Cross-sectional study.
Eyes with a glaucomatous optic nerve appearance or ocular hypertension (n = 523) and healthy eyes (n = 107) were included as cases and control subjects, respectively. The 10-2 and C24-2 visual field results of all eyes were graded by 4 glaucoma specialists for the probability that central visual field abnormalities were present.
The sensitivity of the 10-2 and C24-2 tests for detecting the cases at 95% specificity were not significantly different (e.g., 32.2% and 31.4%, respectively, for grader 1, P = .87; all graders P ≥ .25). At 95% specificity, the pattern standard deviation values from these tests had a similar sensitivity to the qualitative evaluation for the C24-2 test for all graders (P ≥ .083), but it had a significantly higher sensitivity than the qualitative evaluation for the 10-2 test for 3 graders (P ≤ .016).
The similarity in performance of the 10-2 and C24-2 test suggests that the increased sampling density of the former does not significantly improve the detection of central visual field abnormalities, even when based on expert assessment. These findings should not be taken to mean that the 10-2 test is not useful, but it underscores the need for its utility to be clearly established before incorporating it as routine glaucoma standard of care.
研究与传统的 24-2 测试中具有拓扑对应关系的中央 12 个部位（C24-2）相比，通过对 10-2 测试的定性、专家评估，是否能更有效地检测出青光眼的中央视野异常。
横断面研究。
将视神经外观异常或高眼压的眼（n=523）和正常眼（n=107）分别作为病例和对照组纳入研究。由 4 位青光眼专家对所有眼的 10-2 和 C24-2 视野结果进行分级，以评估中央视野异常存在的概率。
在 95%特异性下，10-2 和 C24-2 检测病例的敏感性没有显著差异（例如，第 1 位分级师的敏感性分别为 32.2%和 31.4%，P=.87；所有分级师 P≥.25）。在 95%特异性下，这些测试的模式标准差值与 C24-2 测试的定性评估对于所有分级师的敏感性相似（P≥.083），但对于 3 位分级师，其敏感性明显高于 10-2 测试的定性评估（P≤.016）。
10-2 和 C24-2 测试的性能相似，表明前者的采样密度增加并没有显著提高中央视野异常的检测率，即使是基于专家评估。这些发现不应被视为 10-2 测试没有用，但它强调在将其纳入常规青光眼标准护理之前，需要明确其效用。
