Prospective multi-visit study quantifies reproducibility of VF, OCT, and OCTA metrics in primary open-angle glaucoma, suggesting importance in clinical assessments.
Purpose: To quantify the reproducibility of visual field (VF), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and OCT angiography (OCTA) metrics in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: Thirty-eight POAG patients completed five visits over three months without treatment changes. VF, OCT, and OCTA were obtained. Eyes were classified as mild (mean deviation [MD] > −6 dB) or moderate-to-advanced (MD ≤ −6 dB). Reproducibility was assessed using 95% tolerance limits (TL), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CoV). Mixed-effects models identified factors associated with variability. Results: Thirty-eight participants (age 67 ± 9 years) included 56 mild (74%) and 20 moderate-to-advanced (26%) eyes. VF metrics demonstrated severity-dependent increases in variability, with MD TL widening from ±2 to ±4 dB, ICC decreasing from 0.95 to 0.75, and CoV increasing from 16% to 26%. OCTA metrics also showed severity-related variability, particularly for peripapillary perfusion density (CoV 5% to 9%), whereas macular OCTA parameters showed smaller changes (CoV 1% to 2%). OCT structural measures remained stable across severity stages (peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer [pRNFL] and ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer [mGCIPL] CoV ∼2%). Worse MD predicted greater variability in VF and OCTA metrics (all P ≤ 0.046), whereas older age, longer axial length, and false-negative rate were associated with greater MD variability (all P ≤ 0.022). Conclusions: VF and OCTA metrics showed severity-dependent variability, whereas OCT structural measures remained stable across severity stages. These findings support modality- and severity-specific thresholds for glaucoma progression. Translational Relevance: This study helps clinicians better distinguish true glaucoma progression from normal test variability across VF, OCT, and OCTA measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: