Abstract
Objective Standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field (VF) results are more repeatable using Goldmann stimulus size V (stimV) in eyes with moderate/severe deficits due to glaucoma. There are few reports relating VFs using stimulus size V and III, typically used in the clinic for glaucoma, and none for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). We hypothesized that we could compare and relate the VFs with both stimuli for glaucoma and NAION.
Methods We utilized 1992 same-day pairs of stimIII and stimV SAP VFs using the 24-2 strategy for eyes with glaucoma or NAION. We explored the optimal threshold to censor the raw sensitivities, prior to calculating age-standardized total deviations (TD). We determined the mean and standard deviation of the differences among all TD pairs. We computed a line of best fit to determine closeness to the line of unity.
Results The ideal censoring conversion threshold was 21 dB for stimIII and 24 dB for stimV. The difference between stimV and stimIII censored (0.0 ± 1.9 dB) and uncensored (0.4 ± 2.6 dB) TD pairings strongly correlate with each other (r2 = 0.70, p < 0.001). The line of best fit from these pairings has a slope of 0.92, which is similar to that of the line of unity (m = 1).
Conclusion Censoring plus age correction is a valid method of comparison between stimIII and stimV SAP VFs with moderate to severe VF loss due to optic nerve disorders.
Translational Relevance StimIII and stimV TDs are interchangeable in clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
L.X. Chong, Carl Zeiss Meditec (C, F)
Funding Statement
The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary Foundation, New York, N.Y.; NEI EY032522; Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, NY unrestricted grant to the Department of Ophthalmology; Shulman Family NAION Fund at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and required no additional consent as the data used were de-identified and derived from participants who had consented for use of their data at multiple study institutions.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. Patient information and medical records contain sensitive personal health information that cannot be shared publicly to protect patient confidentiality and comply with ethical guidelines.
