Table 2

Comparison of correlations between VFSL and RNFLT and between VFSL and vessel density

VFSLPOAG eyes (n=124)Group A: eyes without SE (n=84)Group B: eyes with SE (n=40)
RNFLTVessel densityRNFLTVessel densityVessel density
RP value* RP value* RP value* RP value* Z scoreP value†RP value*
VF MD0.240 0.007 0.470 <0.001 0.690 <0.001 0.527 <0.001 −1.5770.1150.343 0.030
T0.358 <0.001 0.560 <0.001 0.528 <0.001 0.593 <0.001 0.5700.5690.494 0.001
TS0.407 <0.001 0.575 <0.001 0.539 <0.001 0.543 <0.001 0.0340.9730.598 <0.001
NS0.0690.4450.386 <0.001 0.3480.0090.2720.012−0.5230.6010.3970.011
N−0.0920.3100.1440.1100.1720.1190.1330.227−0.2530.8010.1880.245
NI0.299 0.001 0.364 <0.001 0.480 <0.001 0.422 <0.001 −0.4430.6580.2920.068
TI0.526 <0.001 0.542 <0.001 0.636 <0.001 0.600 <0.001 −0.3510.7260.424 0.006
  • Statistically significant values are shown in bold.

  • *Bonferroni correction was applied to raw data for measurements in the six sectors. Values that were significant after Bonferroni correction (p<0.0083; 0.05/6) are shown in bold. This was not applied to the global parameters including VF MD, global RNFLT and mean vessel density. Values with p<0.05 were considered significant.

  • †Comparison of correlation coefficients by Steiger’s test.

  • MD, mean deviation; N, nasal; NI, nasal inferior; NS, nasal superior; POAG, primary open-angle glaucoma; RNFLT, retinal nerve fibre layer; SE, segmentation error; T, temporal; TI, temporal inferior; TS, temporal superior; VF, visual field; VFSL, visual field sensitivity loss.