1. Ng M, Sample PA, Pascual JP, et al. Comparison of visual field severity classification systems for glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(8):551–56. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246042/pdf/nihms293729.pdf2. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, et al. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(9):1201–1206. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828122/pdf/nihms-6016.pdf3. Glen FC, Baker H, Crabb DP. A qualitative investigation into patients' views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003996. Published 2014 Jan 10. (GREAT tips on how to improve VF testing reliability, tolerability from the patient’s point of view) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902333/pdf/bmjopen-2013-003996.pdf4. De Moraes CG, Hood DC, Thenappan A, et al. 24-2 Visual Fields Miss Central Defects Shown on 10-2 Tests in Glaucoma Suspects, Ocular Hypertensives, and Early Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(10):1449–1456. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610609/pdf/nihms879972.pdf5. Rao HL, Begum VU, Khadka D, Mandal AK, Senthil S, Garudadri CS. Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127233. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433281/pdf/pone.0127233.pdf 6. Wu Z, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM. Performance of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;196:10–17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258276/pdf/nihms-992679.pdf7. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al. Classification of Visual Field Abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(5):643–650. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/415296. 8. Thonginnetra O, Greenstein VC, Chu D, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC. Normal versus high tension glaucoma: a comparison of functional and structural defects. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(3):151–157. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891909/pdf/nihms85792.pdf 9. Wu Z, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Girkin CA, Zangwill LM. Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Fields for Detecting Progressive Central Visual Loss in Glaucoma Eyes with Early Central Abnormalities. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2019;2(2):95–102. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6860370/pdf/nihms-1518640.pdf10. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569–573. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564806/pdf/BJ1-92-04-0569.pdf11. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, et al. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(9):1201–1206. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828122/pdf/nihms-6016.pdf 12. Phu J, Khuu SK, Yapp M, Assaad N, Hennessy MP, Kalloniatis M. The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100(4):313-332. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5519947/pdf/CXO-100-313.pdf 13. Fung SSM, Lemer C, Russell RA, et al Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi-centre cross-sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucomaBritish Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;97:843-847. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK259969/ 14. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR, Niziol LM, Janz NK; CIGTS Study Investigators. Visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study the impact of treatment and other baseline factors. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):200-207. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3316491/pdf/nihms108823.pdf 15. Heijl A, Patella VM, Chong LX, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, Lee GC, Callan T, Bengtsson B. A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Feb;198:154-165. https://www.ajo.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0002-9394%2818%2930592-0 16. De Moraes CG, Liebmann JM, Levin LA. Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2017;56:107-147. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5313392/pdf/nihms828977.pdf 17. Saunders LJ, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM. What rates of glaucoma progression are clinically significant?. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2016;11(3):227-234. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898440/ 18. The Field Analyzer Primer - Fifth Edition - Excellent Perimetry. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sUj_r_IKo3mrs2J-bprMvXoyJauYZQnV/view 19. Hood DC. Does Retinal Ganglion Cell Loss Precede Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma?. J Glaucoma. 2019;28(11):945-951. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343057/pdf/nihms-1540372.pdf 20. Wollstein G, Kagemann L, Bilonick RA, et al. Retinal nerve fibre layer and visual function loss in glaucoma: the tipping point [published correction appears in Br J Ophthalmol. 2013 Aug;97(8):1088]. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(1):47-52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193885/pdf/nihms304229.pdf 21. Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C Test Grids for Identifying Central Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Suspect Patients. Ophthalmology. 2021 Oct;128(10):1405-1416. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.03.014. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161642021002001 22. Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJ, Tsai JC. Comparison of 24-2 and 30-2 perimetry in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol. 1999 Jun;19(2):100-8. PMID: 10380130. https://journals.lww.com/jneuro-ophthalmology/Abstract/1999/06000/Comparison_of_24_2_and_30_2_Perimetry_in.4.aspx 23. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, Fan J, Cello KE, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;123(9):1201-6. "Confirmation of visual field change at successive examinations and correlation of visual fieldchanges with other clinical observations (optic disc change, nerve fiber layer change, etc.)seems to be the best method of detection of progression." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828122/pdf/nihms-6016.pdf