The categories have been reduced to progress (probable and definitive) and stable (probable and definitive). 100% match means precise correspondence between the five doctors, 80% corresponds to an exact match between four doctors and 60% corresponds to an accurate correspondence between three doctors. The main results and measures Intraobserver and Interobserver were evaluated using Gwet`s second-order statistics and agreements. The agreement was compared to other factors. Since there is no general consensus on the one-time value of regression propensity and the value of a progression, or on the requirement of contiguous points to show this behaviour, and whether it should be maintained in the following fields, progressor is currently a subjective analysis. For this reason, and in the absence of a generally recognized gold standard for visual field progression, this study examines the usefulness of Progressor by establishing the degree of agreement between experienced observers using both progressor techniques and standard clinical techniques (manual comparison of serial impressions from an automated perimeter). Although these statements were made more than a decade ago, they are probably still true today, although knowledge of whether a patient`s glaucoma is progressive or stable remains essential for the treatment of the disease. Several evaluation systems have been designed to identify the visual progression of fields for research purposes2-5, but none have been widely accepted in general clinical practice. However, unsurent clinical judgment is inconsistent: even specialized observers show significant discrepancies on whether a series of visual fields means progression or stability.1 One possible reason is that the standard output of most automated perimeters provides insufficient information on progression or stability. Therefore, when the doctor tries to determine whether a specific set of results is a progressive disease, the task is to manually compare decibel sensitivity values (or treated versions) or chart diagrams for all fields in the series. This task is determined by the contributions of variability “within the test” variability (short-term fluctuation)6 and “between test” variability (long-term fluctuation)7, both of which are known to be increased normally in glaucoma.8 For these reasons, and because the number grids generated by automated perimeters are easily accessible for numerical analysis. , a large number of software and statistical approaches have been used to help determine the visual progression of the glasion field.