There is little evidence that adding the 10-2 visual field test after already running the 24-2 test provides additional undetected defects in the central visual field, a recent study suggests.

This prospective observational study included 97 patients with early open-angle glaucoma and 65 healthy controls. All participants underwent 24-2 and 10-2 testing. A team focused on the 12 central test locations of the 24-2 test and compared the total deviation and pattern deviation at the 5% and 2% levels at baseline and follow-up.

The researchers found that the areas under the curve for the 24-2 and 10-2 tests were similar for all of the criteria, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 and 0.91 to 0.94, respectively. At matched specificity, they noted that the sensitivity of the 24-2 test was significantly higher for all criteria except for pattern deviation analysis at 5%. In patients with an abnormal field, they added that the overlap varied from 60% to 86% depending on the criteria, while quadrant-specific analysis showed a concordance ranging from 70% to 87%. At follow-up, the researchers found the test results were repeatable in 55% to 70% of patients.

Given the equivocal results between the two test patterns, “it might be more prudent to reserve 10-2 testing for following selected patients with a higher risk of progression in the central visual field,” the study authors concluded in their paper.