Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 22, 2025
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Correlation between relative afferent pupillary defect and visual field defects on Humphrey automated perimetry: A
Juthamat Witthayaweerasak1, Pemika Lertjittham1, Nipat Aui-Aree1
1Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla, Thailand.
Purpose:
To evaluate the correlations between relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) magnitude, assessed using the clinical plus scale and neutral density filters, and visual field parameters in patients with unilateral or asymmetrical bilateral optic neuropathy or retinopathy.
Methods:
Fifty-two patients with RAPD, graded by the swinging flashlight test and neutral density filters, were analyzed in this cross-sectional trial. The RAPD clinical plus scale was divided into grade 1+, initial weak constriction; grade 2+, initial stall then dilatation; grade 3+, immediate dilatation; and grade 4+, fixed amaurotic pupil. Patients with positive RAPD underwent a visual field examination with Humphrey automated perimetry that included visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD). Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and linear regression were used to analyze the association between RAPD grades and visual field parameters.
Results:
RAPD clinical plus grades were correlated with interocular VFI (r = 0.55, P < 0.001) and MD (r = 0.48, P = 0.004) differences. Average interocular VFI differences were estimated as follows: 16.75 × RAPD plus grade- 7.53. RAPD, graded by neutral density filters, was correlated with VFI (r = 0.59, P < 0.001), MD (r = 0.54, P < 0.001), and PSD (r = 0.34, P = 0.01).
Conclusions:
The RAPD plus scale and neutral density filter grading systems were associated with quantitative visual field defect parameters, with VFI showing the strongest association. RAPD clinical grading could substitute more sophisticated central visual field evaluation methods as a low-cost, low-tech, and widely available approach.
