Refining Visual Field Trend Progression Criteria in Glaucoma

IF 3.3 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-14 DOI:10.1016/j.ogla.2026.01.004
Jeremy C.K. Tan MD, Giovanni Montesano MD, PhD, Katharina Bell MD, PhD, Jonathan Crowston MBBS, PhD, David P. Crabb PhD
{"title":"Refining Visual Field Trend Progression Criteria in Glaucoma","authors":"Jeremy C.K. Tan MD,&nbsp;Giovanni Montesano MD, PhD,&nbsp;Katharina Bell MD, PhD,&nbsp;Jonathan Crowston MBBS, PhD,&nbsp;David P. Crabb PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2026.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To assess the stability of visual field (VF) progression events and to evaluate strategies to reduce false-positive (FP) progression.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective study.</div></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><div>Two thousand one hundred thirty-three eyes of 2133 patients with 12 consecutive VF tests from five National Health Service glaucoma clinics.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A progression event was defined as a negative slope and <em>P</em> value &lt; 0.05. False-positive progression events (“reversions”) were defined as events where the <em>P</em> value fell below 0.05 at ≥ 1 visit and subsequently rose above 0.05 at a later time point. The impact of stricter probability thresholds (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.02, 0.01 and 0.005) and event assessment at later visits on FP progression was evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Frequency of FP progression events.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four hundred fifty-seven (21.4%) eyes had at least one reversion at the <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05 threshold, for a median interval of 2 visits. The mean rate of change at the time of apparent progression was –1.05 dB/year (95% confidence interval –1.19 to –0.92 dB/year). The proportions of eyes with FP progression events were significantly lower at stricter probability thresholds (13.7%, 9.9%, and 7.7% at <em>P</em> &lt; 0.02, &lt; 0.01, and &lt; 0.005, respectively; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Using stricter thresholds conferred significantly lower hazards of FP progression (hazard ratio 0.60 for <em>P</em> &lt; 0.02, 0.42 for <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01, and 0.38 for <em>P</em> &lt; 0.005; all <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>A substantial proportion of apparent progression at the established <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05 threshold may be falsely positive. Using stricter probability thresholds and initiating event detection at later visits may improve progression specificity in clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19519,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":"9 4","pages":"Pages 372-379"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589419626000049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the stability of visual field (VF) progression events and to evaluate strategies to reduce false-positive (FP) progression.

Design

Retrospective study.

Subjects

Two thousand one hundred thirty-three eyes of 2133 patients with 12 consecutive VF tests from five National Health Service glaucoma clinics.

Methods

A progression event was defined as a negative slope and P value < 0.05. False-positive progression events (“reversions”) were defined as events where the P value fell below 0.05 at ≥ 1 visit and subsequently rose above 0.05 at a later time point. The impact of stricter probability thresholds (P < 0.02, 0.01 and 0.005) and event assessment at later visits on FP progression was evaluated.

Main Outcome Measures

Frequency of FP progression events.

Results

Four hundred fifty-seven (21.4%) eyes had at least one reversion at the P < 0.05 threshold, for a median interval of 2 visits. The mean rate of change at the time of apparent progression was –1.05 dB/year (95% confidence interval –1.19 to –0.92 dB/year). The proportions of eyes with FP progression events were significantly lower at stricter probability thresholds (13.7%, 9.9%, and 7.7% at P < 0.02, < 0.01, and < 0.005, respectively; P < 0.001). Using stricter thresholds conferred significantly lower hazards of FP progression (hazard ratio 0.60 for P < 0.02, 0.42 for P < 0.01, and 0.38 for P < 0.005; all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of apparent progression at the established P < 0.05 threshold may be falsely positive. Using stricter probability thresholds and initiating event detection at later visits may improve progression specificity in clinical practice.

Financial Disclosure(s)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
改进青光眼的视野趋势进展标准:显著性阈值和测试频率的影响。
目的:评价视野(VF)进展事件的稳定性,探讨减少假阳性进展的策略。设计:回顾性研究。受试者:来自5家NHS青光眼诊所的2133例患者,进行了12次连续的VF测试,共2133只眼。方法:进展事件定义为斜率为负且P值< 0.05。假阳性进展事件(“逆转”)定义为P值在≥一次就诊时低于0.05,随后在以后的时间点上升到0.05以上的事件。评估更严格的概率阈值(P < 0.02, 0.01和0.005)和后续就诊事件评估对假阳性进展的影响。主要结果测量:假阳性进展事件的频率。结果:457只(21.4%)眼在两次访视的中位数间隔内至少出现一次恢复,P < 0.05。明显进展时的平均变化率为-1.05 dB/年(95% CI -1.19至-0.92 dB/年)。在更严格的概率阈值下,假阳性进展事件的眼睛比例显著降低(分别为13.7%、9.9%和7.7%,P < 0.02、< 0.01和< 0.005,P < 0.001)。使用更严格的阈值可以显著降低假阳性进展的风险(p < 0.02时的HR为0.60,p < 0.01时的HR为0.42,p < 0.005时的HR为0.38,均p < 0.001)。结论:在P < 0.05的阈值下,相当大比例的明显进展可能是假阳性。使用更严格的概率阈值和在后期就诊时启动事件检测可以提高临床实践中的进展特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
140
审稿时长
46 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书