. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan 11;176:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.001

TABLE 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Results of Linear Regressions From Central Retinal Vessel Trunk Location/Circumpapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness to Central Visual Field Loss for Mild, Moderate, and Severe Glaucoma Groups

CVFL Sectoring Approach	Result Variable	Mild Glaucoma	Moderate Glaucoma	Severe Glaucoma
C6 (Garway-Heath)	CVFL	−1.57 ± 1.13	−2.74 ± 3.25	−7.30 ± 6.50
	r_CRVTL (P value)	−0.08 (.11)	−0.38 (.02*)	−0.65 (.002*)
	r_cpRNFLT (P value)	0.05 (.36)	−0.08 (.62)	−0.13 (.56)
	Improvement by CRVTL (LRT P value)	.08	.01*	<.001*
C2 (Hood)	CVFL	−1.53 ± 1.88	3.51 ± 5.58	−10.14 ± 9.80
	r_cpRNFLT (P value)	−0.14 (.008*)	0.28 (.08)	−0.42 (.055)
	r_cpRNFLT (P value)	0.09 (.06)	0.04 (.78)	0.12 (.59)
	Improvement by CRVTL (LRT P value)	.003*	.04*	.047*

cpRNFLT = circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness; CRVTL = central retinal vessel trunk location; CVFL = central visual field loss; LRT = likelihood ratio test; VF = visual field.

LRT demonstrates whether adding CRVTL as additional structural parameter improves the structure-function model of the cpRNFLT–central VF association. Significant results (P < .05) are marked by asterisks. C6 and C2 refer to the 6 and 2 most central VF locations from the Garway-Heath scheme⁹ and the macular vulnerability zone proposed by Hood and associates,¹⁶ respectively.