Comparing Five Criteria for Evaluating Glaucomatous Visual Fields: 5 Visual Field Criteria for Evaluating Glaucoma.

Abstract Purpose No consensus exists on the relative superiority among criteria for evaluating glaucomatous visual field (VF) damage. We compared the sensitivities and specificities of five criteria—Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT), Hoddap-Anderson-Parrish 2 (HAP2), Foster, United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS), and Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS)—across various levels of functional and structural glaucomatous damage. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods This single-center study included suspect or known glaucoma patients with reliable VF (Humphrey 24-2 SITA) and OCT (Spectralis) examinations within a 4-month period; one eye per patient. The level of functional and structural damage was defined by mean deviation (MD) and by an OCT score, respectively. We created the OCT score by counting the number of abnormal (P 0), respectively. Results We obtained 1230 patients. In patients with low glaucomatous damage, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher positive rates suggesting lower specificities, while GHT, Foster, LoGTS had lower positive rates suggesting higher specificities. In patients with higher glaucomatous damage, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher positive rates indicating higher sensitivities while GHT, Foster, and LoGTS had lower positive rates, indicating lower sensitivities. Conclusions No criteria had uniformly superior performance. Selection of criteria should consider the degree of damage anticipated and the desire for either higher sensitivity or specificity.