Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Nov 17.
Published in final edited form as: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Oct 3;50(2):691–701. doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-2136

Table 1.

Population Summary of the Progressed and Nonprogressed Patient Datasets from the UCSD Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study

DIGS Eyes Progressed by Disc and/or GPA DIGS Eyes Progressed by Disc DIGS Eyes Nonprogressed
Eyes (n) 36 20 210
Subjects (n) 33 20 148
Age (y), mean (95% CI) 70.37 (67.26–73.48) 67.65 (63.99–71.31) 66.24 (64.24–68.24)
HRT exams (n), median (range) 5 (4–8) 5 (4–8) 4 (4–8)
HRT follow-up (y), median (range) 4.13 (2.38–6.96) 4.36 (2.38–6.96) 3.59 (1.65–7.40)
SAP MD at baseline (dB), mean (95% CI) −3.65 (−5.45–−1.84) −4.34 (−7.35–−1.33) −1.72 (−2.16–−1.28)
SAP PSD at baseline (dB), mean (95% CI) 4.19 (2.87–5.51) 5.32 (3.10–7.54) 2.47 (2.18–2.76)
Abnormal disc by photography only at baseline, n (%) 12 (33.3) 6 (30.0) 54 (25.7)
Abnormal visual field only at baseline, n (%) 4 (11.1) 1 (5.0) 28 (13.33)
Abnormal disc and abnormal visual field at baseline, n (%) 15 (41.7) 9 (45.0) 41 (19.52)
Normal disc and normal visual field at baseline, n (%) 5 (13.9) 4 (20.0) 87 (41.43)