Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid

A systematic review was conducted of studies published up to 30 August 2024. Studies comparing conventional visual field (VF) indices, ability to detect central visual field defects (CVFDs), structure–function (S-F) concordance, and test characteristics across the HVF 24-2C SITA-Faster, 24-2 SITA-St...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Eric Jin, Natalie Shi Qi Wong, Claire Xin Yi Goh, Michael W. Stewart, Syril Dorairaj, Bryan Chin Hou Ang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-06-01
Series:Bioengineering
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/7/711
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1839616511643222016
author Eric Jin
Natalie Shi Qi Wong
Claire Xin Yi Goh
Michael W. Stewart
Syril Dorairaj
Bryan Chin Hou Ang
author_facet Eric Jin
Natalie Shi Qi Wong
Claire Xin Yi Goh
Michael W. Stewart
Syril Dorairaj
Bryan Chin Hou Ang
author_sort Eric Jin
collection DOAJ
description A systematic review was conducted of studies published up to 30 August 2024. Studies comparing conventional visual field (VF) indices, ability to detect central visual field defects (CVFDs), structure–function (S-F) concordance, and test characteristics across the HVF 24-2C SITA-Faster, 24-2 SITA-Standard/Faster, and 10-2 SITA-Standard/Fast tests were included. Eight studies with 1239 subjects (49.1% male; mean age, 54.8–66.9 years) were analyzed. The 24-2C produced similar global VF indices compared to the 10-2 and 24-2 (Standard/Faster) (ICC = 0.95 and 0.80, <i>p</i> < 0.001), detected more VF defects and CVFD clusters, and demonstrated greater S-F concordance than the 24-2 (Standard/Faster). Although the 10-2 (Standard/Fast) detected significantly more CVFDs and had a greater S-F concordance, the agreement between the 24-2C and 10-2 grids was substantial (ĸ = 0.488 to 0.708). The 24-2C was also faster compared to the 24-2 Standard and 10-2 (Standard/Fast), with comparable false positives, higher false negatives, and fewer fixation losses than the 24-2 Standard. In conclusion, the HVF 24-2C is quicker and identifies more CVFDs than the 24-2 grid, demonstrates high agreement with the 10-2 grid, and aids in CVFD screening.
format Article
id doaj-art-f1569c1c3dc84dd78c2e4f6e6d55be00
institution Matheson Library
issn 2306-5354
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Bioengineering
spelling doaj-art-f1569c1c3dc84dd78c2e4f6e6d55be002025-07-25T13:14:41ZengMDPI AGBioengineering2306-53542025-06-0112771110.3390/bioengineering12070711Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test GridEric Jin0Natalie Shi Qi Wong1Claire Xin Yi Goh2Michael W. Stewart3Syril Dorairaj4Bryan Chin Hou Ang5Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, SingaporeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, SingaporeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, SingaporeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USADepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USAYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, SingaporeA systematic review was conducted of studies published up to 30 August 2024. Studies comparing conventional visual field (VF) indices, ability to detect central visual field defects (CVFDs), structure–function (S-F) concordance, and test characteristics across the HVF 24-2C SITA-Faster, 24-2 SITA-Standard/Faster, and 10-2 SITA-Standard/Fast tests were included. Eight studies with 1239 subjects (49.1% male; mean age, 54.8–66.9 years) were analyzed. The 24-2C produced similar global VF indices compared to the 10-2 and 24-2 (Standard/Faster) (ICC = 0.95 and 0.80, <i>p</i> < 0.001), detected more VF defects and CVFD clusters, and demonstrated greater S-F concordance than the 24-2 (Standard/Faster). Although the 10-2 (Standard/Fast) detected significantly more CVFDs and had a greater S-F concordance, the agreement between the 24-2C and 10-2 grids was substantial (ĸ = 0.488 to 0.708). The 24-2C was also faster compared to the 24-2 Standard and 10-2 (Standard/Fast), with comparable false positives, higher false negatives, and fewer fixation losses than the 24-2 Standard. In conclusion, the HVF 24-2C is quicker and identifies more CVFDs than the 24-2 grid, demonstrates high agreement with the 10-2 grid, and aids in CVFD screening.https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/7/711glaucomavisual field24-2C
spellingShingle Eric Jin
Natalie Shi Qi Wong
Claire Xin Yi Goh
Michael W. Stewart
Syril Dorairaj
Bryan Chin Hou Ang
Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
Bioengineering
glaucoma
visual field
24-2C
title Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
title_full Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
title_fullStr Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
title_full_unstemmed Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
title_short Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid
title_sort advancements in visual field testing a systematic review of the 24 2c test grid
topic glaucoma
visual field
24-2C
url https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/12/7/711
work_keys_str_mv AT ericjin advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid
AT natalieshiqiwong advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid
AT clairexinyigoh advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid
AT michaelwstewart advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid
AT syrildorairaj advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid
AT bryanchinhouang advancementsinvisualfieldtestingasystematicreviewofthe242ctestgrid