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

## TL;DR

This paper reviews the 24-2C visual field test grid, showing it is faster and better at detecting central visual field defects compared to other grids.

## Contribution

The study systematically compares the 24-2C test grid with existing grids for visual field testing.

## Key findings

- The 24-2C test grid detected more visual field defects and central visual field clusters than the 24-2 grid.
- The 24-2C test grid showed high agreement with the 10-2 grid and was faster than the 24-2 and 10-2 grids.
- The 24-2C had higher false negatives but fewer fixation losses compared to the 24-2 Standard.

## Abstract

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, p < 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.