Supporting information for: Discrimination ability of central visual field testing using stimulus size I, II, and III and relationship with macular ganglion cell thickness in chiasmal compression
Data files
Jan 29, 2024 version files 42.48 KB
-
DISCRIMINATION.ABILITY.SUPPORTING_INFORMATION3.xlsx
39.54 KB
-
README.md
2.94 KB
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the relationship between macular ganglion cell layer (mGCL) thickness and 10-2 visual field (VF) sensitivity using different stimulus sizes in patients with temporal hemianopia from chiasmal compression.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 30 eyes from 25 patients with temporal VF loss on 24-2 SITA standard automated perimetry due to previous chiasmal compression and 30 healthy eyes (23 controls). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the macular area and 10-2 VF testing using Goldmann stimulus size I (GI), II (GII), and III (GIII) were performed in the Octopus 900 perimeter. For the sake of analysis, mGCL thickness and VF data were segregated into four quadrants (two temporal and two nasal) and two halves (temporal and nasal) centered on the fovea, and the groups were compared using generalized estimated equations. The discrimination ability of GI, GII, and GIII was evaluated, as was the correlation between mGCL and 10-2 VF sensitivity using GI, GII, and GIII.
Results: All mGCL parameters were significantly reduced in patients compared to controls. 10-2 VF test sensitivity using GI, GII, and GIII was significantly lower in patients than in controls (p≤0.008) for all parameters, except the three nasal divisions when using GI (p=0.41, 0.07 and 0.18) Significant correlations were found between temporal VF sectors (all stimulus sizes) and the corresponding nasal mGCL measurements, with similar discrimination ability. Significant correlations were also observed between all three nasal VF divisions and the corresponding temporal mGCL thickness when using stimulus sizes I and II, but not stimulus size III.
Conclusions: On 10-2 VF testing, GII outperformed GI and GIII with regard to discrimination ability and structure-function correlation with mGCL thickness in chiasmal compression. Our findings suggest that the use of GII can enhance the diagnostic power of 10-2 VF testing, although further studies are necessary to support this conclusion.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.xgxd254pk
Give a brief summary of dataset contents, contextualized in experimental procedures and results.
Description of the data and file structure
DATA ARE PRESENTED IN AN EXCELL FILE INCLUDING
1) Demographic data of participants
· column A has a list of patients (from line 3 to 32) and controls (from line 35 to 64). When the number is repeated it indicates that the two eyes of the patient or control were evaluated.
column B indicates the gender of patient or control. Column C the age of the subject. Column D the eye studied (RIGHT EYE=OD, LEFT EYE=OE)
2) Structural parameters evalated
· Structural parameters (macular ganglion cell layer (mGCL) thickness in microns obtained using optical coherence tomography in patients and controls (Columns: F, G, H, I, J, K and L) divided in qudrants (SN=SUPERONASAL, ST=SUPEROTEMPORAL, IN=INFERONASAL, IT=INFEROTEMPORAL), in the nasal hemiretina, temporal hemiretina and as global average.
3) Functional parameters evaluated using central 10-2 visual field on Octopus 900 perimeter
· Visual field parameters (deviation from normal in decibels) obtained on 10-2 test using target size III stimulus in each quadrant, as global average, in the temporal hemifield and in the nasal hemifield (columns Q, R, S, T, and U). ST=SUPEROTEMPORAL, IT=INFEROTEMPORAL, SN=SUPERONASAL, IN=INFERONASAL
· Visual field parameters (deviation from normal in decibels) obtained on 10-2 test using target size II stimulus in each quadrant, as global average, in the temporal hemifield and in the nasal hemifield (columns W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC). ST=SUPEROTEMPORAL, IT=INFEROTEMPORAL, SN=SUPERONASAL, IN=INFERONASAL
· Visual field parameters (deviation from normal in decibels) obtained on 10-2 test using target size I stimulus in each quadrant, as global average, in the temporal hemifield and in the nasal hemifield (columns AE,, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ and AK). ST=SUPEROTEMPORAL, IT=INFEROTEMPORAL, SN=SUPERONASAL, IN=INFERONASAL
Sharing/Access information
This is a section for linking to other ways to access the data, and for linking to sources the data is derived from, if any.
Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data:
Data was derived from the following sources:
*
Code/Software
This is an optional, freeform section for describing any code in your submission and the software used to run it.
Describe any scripts, code, or notebooks (e.g., R, Python, Mathematica, MatLab) as well as the software versions (including loaded packages) that you used to run those files. If your repository contains more than one file whose relationship to other scripts is not obvious, provide information about the workflow that you used to run those scripts and notebooks.
In this study, our purpose was to compare the relationship between macular ganglion cell layer (mGCL) thickness and 10-2 visual field (VF) sensitivity using different stimulus sizes in patients with temporal hemianopia from chiasmal compression. To do so, a cross-sectional study was conducted involving 30 eyes from 25 patients with temporal VF loss on 24-2 SITA standard automated perimetry due to previous chiasmal compression and 30 healthy eyes (23 controls). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the macular area and 10-2 VF testing using Goldmann stimulus size I (GI), II (GII), and III (GIII) were performed in the Octopus 900 perimeter. For the sake of analysis, mGCL thickness and VF data were segregated into four quadrants (two temporal and two nasal) and two halves (temporal and nasal) centered on the fovea, and the groups were compared using generalized estimated equations. The discrimination ability of GI, GII, and GIII was evaluated, as was the correlation between mGCL and 10-2 VF sensitivity using GI, GII, and GIII.
The dataset is clinical findings collected from visual field examinations and on optical coherence tomography examinations. Data are from patients and controls of the study.