Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Baseline 10-2 Visual Field Loss as a Predictor for Future Glaucoma Progression.

Journal of glaucoma·2022
Same author

Glaucoma Suspects: The Impact of Risk Factor-Driven Review Periods on Clinical Load, Diagnoses, and Healthcare Costs.

Translational vision science & technology·2022
Same author

Corneal Biomechanical Changes Caused by Acute Elevation of IOP in Eyes with and without Glaucoma.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·2021
Same author

Change in Intraocular Pressure and Ocular Perfusion Pressure Due to Trendelenburg Positioning.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·2020
Same author

Retraction: Interleukin-12 Deficiency Is Permissive for Angiogenesis in UV Radiation-Induced Skin Tumors.

Cancer research·2018
Same author

Differentiating Occult Branch Retinal Artery Occlusion from Primary Open-angle Glaucoma.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·2018

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 10, 2025

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

6.6K

Prediction of 10-2 Visual Field Loss Using Optical Coherence Tomography and 24-2 Visual Field Data.

Michael Sullivan-Mee1,2, Mahdi Hedayat1, Nicole Charry1

  • 1Raymond G. Murphy VA Medical Center.

Journal of Glaucoma
|April 4, 2021
PubMed
Summary

Clinicians accurately predicted glaucoma visual field loss using standard tests, suggesting 10-2 visual field testing may not be necessary for most glaucoma patients. This aids in diagnosing central vision loss.

More Related Videos

Using Optical Coherence Tomography and Optokinetic Response As Structural and Functional Visual System Readouts in Mice and Rats
07:08

Using Optical Coherence Tomography and Optokinetic Response As Structural and Functional Visual System Readouts in Mice and Rats

Published on: January 10, 2019

10.3K
Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients
12:23

Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients

Published on: April 14, 2014

14.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 10, 2025

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

6.6K
Using Optical Coherence Tomography and Optokinetic Response As Structural and Functional Visual System Readouts in Mice and Rats
07:08

Using Optical Coherence Tomography and Optokinetic Response As Structural and Functional Visual System Readouts in Mice and Rats

Published on: January 10, 2019

10.3K
Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients
12:23

Dynamic Visual Tests to Identify and Quantify Visual Damage and Repair Following Demyelination in Optic Neuritis Patients

Published on: April 14, 2014

14.3K

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry
  • Glaucoma Research

Background:

  • Glaucoma diagnosis relies on structural and functional tests to detect visual field (VF) loss.
  • Central vision loss, specifically 10-2 VF defects, is crucial but challenging to assess.
  • Predicting 10-2 VF loss using existing clinical data is an area of interest.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the accuracy of clinicians in predicting the presence and location of 10-2 VF loss.
  • To determine if standard glaucoma assessment data is sufficient for this prediction.
  • To investigate the influence of clinician experience on prediction accuracy.

Main Methods:

  • 416 eyes of glaucoma suspects or patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were analyzed.
  • 6 clinicians predicted 10-2 VF loss using 24-2 VF and OCT structural data.
  • Prediction accuracy, false positives/negatives, and inter-rater agreement (weighted κ) were calculated.

Main Results:

  • Clinicians achieved 90% mean accuracy in predicting the presence/absence of 10-2 VF loss.
  • Inter-rater agreement was good to very good (mean weighted κ = 0.75).
  • Mean accuracy for predicting hemispheric location was 73%, with errors in identifying bilateral defects.

Conclusions:

  • Standard clinical metrics effectively predict the presence/absence of 10-2 glaucomatous VF loss.
  • 10-2 VF testing may not be essential for confirming central VF involvement in most glaucoma cases.
  • Further research is needed on errors in identifying bilateral 10-2 VF defects.