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 Experiment Videos

Confidence intervals for change in automated visual fields.

H D Hoskins1, S D Magee, M V Drake

  • 1Foundation for Glaucoma Research, San Francisco, CA 94102.

The British Journal of Ophthalmology
|August 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Corneal endothelial cell loss following trabeculectomy with mitomycin C.

Journal of glaucoma·2009
Same author

The future of laser glaucoma surgery.

Journal of glaucoma·2009
Same author

Repeatability of the glaucoma-scope measurements of optic nerve head topography.

Journal of glaucoma·2009
Same author

Progressive retinal dysfunction in diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2006
Same author

Medical professionalism--focusing on the real issues.

The New England journal of medicine·2000
Same author

How often should patients with diabetes be screened for retinopathy?

JAMA·2000
Same journal

Identifying patients with poor visual outcomes after primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery using machine learning.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Incidence of bilateral disease and choroidal neovascularisation in punctate inner choroiditis.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Reference map of multimodal vision deficits in intermediate age-related macular degeneration: contrast sensitivity and low-contrast visual acuity.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Commentary on 'identifying patients with poor visual outcomes after primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery using machine learning'.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Automated deep learning-based retinoschisis and detachment volume measurement in pathological myopia with posterior scleral contraction.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
Same journal

Bacterial keratitis: a global review of current practices, challenges and innovations.

The British journal of ophthalmology·2026
See all related articles

Significant visual field changes are needed to confirm disease progression, not just random fluctuations. Repeat visual field tests if unsure about changes to ensure accuracy.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Visual Science
  • Medical Diagnostics

Background:

  • Accurate detection of progressive visual field loss is crucial for managing glaucoma and other optic neuropathies.
  • Distinguishing true disease progression from measurement variability in visual field testing is a clinical challenge.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the magnitude of change in visual field sensitivity required to confidently predict a downward trend.
  • To assess how initial visual field damage influences the amount of change needed for trend confirmation.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of 136 eyes (86 patients) from Humphrey visual field analyser (program 30-2) database.
  • Selection of series where the second field showed depression compared to the first.
  • Stratification of data by initial field damage and analysis of seven visual field regions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Minimally damaged regions required 4.7–5.6 dB change, while more damaged regions needed 5.5–7.2 dB change for 95% confidence of a confirmed downward trend.
  • The superior Bjerrum region demonstrated the highest sensitivity for detecting change.
  • The lower temporal region was found to be the least sensitive in detecting change.

Conclusions:

  • Substantial changes between two successive visual fields are necessary to confirm disease progression over random fluctuation.
  • Repeating visual field tests is recommended when uncertainty exists regarding the reality of observed changes.