| 1. |
- Heijl, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm : Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study
- 2019
-
In: American Journal of Ophthalmology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9394. ; 198, s. 154-165
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field–testing strategy—Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast—and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. Design: Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. Methods: Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. Results: Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P <.001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P =.007) and SITA Faster (P =.002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test–retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. Conclusions: SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.
|
|
| 2. |
- Heijl, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
False Positive Responses in Standard Automated Perimetry
- 2022
-
In: American Journal of Ophthalmology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9394. ; 233, s. 180-188
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To analyze the relationship between rates of false positive (FP) responses and standard automated perimetry results. Design: Prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Methods: One hundred twenty-six patients with manifest or suspect glaucoma were tested with Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard, SITA Fast, and SITA Faster at each of 2 visits. We calculated intervisit differences in mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and number of statistically significant test points as a function of FP rates and also as a function of general height (GH). Results: Increasing FP values were associated with higher MD values for all 3 algorithms, but the effects were small, 0.3 dB to 0.6 dB, for an increase of 10 percentage points of FP rate, and for VFI even smaller (0.6%-1.4%). Only small parts of intervisit differences were explained by FP (r2 values 0.00-0.11). The effects of FP were larger in severe glaucoma, with MD increases of 1.1 dB to 2.0 dB per 10 percentage points of FP, and r2 values ranging from 0.04 to 0.33. The numbers of significantly depressed total deviation points were affected only slightly, and pattern deviation probability maps were generally unaffected. GH was much more strongly related to perimetric outcomes than FP. Conclusions: Across 3 different standard automated perimetry thresholding algorithms, FP rates showed only weak associations with visual field test results, except in severe glaucoma. Current recommendations regarding acceptable FP ranges may require revision. GH or other analyses may be better suited than FP rates for identifying unreliable results in patients who frequently press the response button without having perceived stimuli.
|
|
