| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 From the Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; the 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Tajimi Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan; the 3 Faculty of Medicine, Osaka University, Japan; and the 4 Akasaka Kitazawa Eye Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
PURPOSE. To investigate the distributions of threshold estimates with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithms (SITA) Standard, SITA Fast, and the Full Threshold algorithm (Humphrey Field Analyzer; Zeiss-Humphrey Instruments, Dublin, CA) and to compare the pointwise test–retest variability of these strategies.
METHODS. One eye of 49 patients (mean age, 61.6 years; range, 22–81) with glaucoma (Mean Deviation mean, -7.13 dB; range, +1.8 to -23.9 dB) was examined four times with each of the three strategies. The mean and median SITA Standard and SITA Fast threshold estimates were compared with a "best available" estimate of sensitivity (mean results of three Full Threshold tests). Pointwise 90% retest limits (5th and 95th percentiles of retest thresholds) were derived to assess the reproducibility of individual threshold estimates.
RESULTS. The differences between the threshold estimates of the SITA and Full Threshold strategies were largest (
3 dB) for midrange sensitivities (15 dB). The threshold distributions of SITA were considerably different from those of the Full Threshold strategy. The differences remained of similar magnitude when the analysis was repeated on a subset of 20 locations that are examined early during the course of a Full Threshold examination. With sensitivities above 25 dB, both SITA strategies exhibited lower test–retest variability than the Full Threshold strategy. Below 25 dB, the retest intervals of SITA Standard were slightly smaller than those of the Full Threshold strategy, whereas those of SITA Fast were larger.
CONCLUSIONS. SITA Standard may be superior to the Full Threshold strategy for monitoring patients with visual field loss. The greater test–retest variability of SITA Fast in areas of low sensitivity is likely to offset the benefit of even shorter test durations with this strategy. The sensitivity differences between the SITA and Full Threshold strategies may relate to factors other than reduced fatigue. They are, however, small in comparison to the test–retest variability.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. S. Harwerth, J. L. Wheat, and N. V. Rangaswamy Age-Related Losses of Retinal Ganglion Cells and Axons Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2008; 49(10): 4437 - 4443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Hong, G. J. Seong, C. Y. Kim, and Y. J. Hong Fluctuation of Intraocular Pressure as a Predictor of Visual Field Progression--Reply Arch Ophthalmol, August 1, 2008; 126(8): 1169 - 1170. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Hot, M. W. Dul, and W. H. Swanson Development and Evaluation of a Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry Test for Patients with Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 3049 - 3057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. Broman, H. A. Quigley, S. K. West, J. Katz, B. Munoz, K. Bandeen-Roche, J. M. Tielsch, D. S. Friedman, J. Crowston, H. R. Taylor, et al. Estimating the Rate of Progressive Visual Field Damage in Those with Open-Angle Glaucoma, from Cross-Sectional Data Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2008; 49(1): 66 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Fogagnolo, A. McNaught, M. Centofanti, L. Rossetti, and N. Orzalesi The Effects of Intraocular Pressure Reduction on Perimetric Variability in Glaucomatous Eyes Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 4557 - 4563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. S. Kim, J. J. McAnany, K. R. Alexander, and G. A. Fishman Intersession Repeatability of Humphrey Perimetry Measurements in Patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 4720 - 4724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Turpin, D. Jankovic, and A. M. McKendrick Retesting Visual Fields: Utilizing Prior Information to Decrease Test-Retest Variability in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2007; 48(4): 1627 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Friedman, H. D. Jampel, B. Munoz, and S. K. West The Prevalence of Open-angle Glaucoma Among Blacks and Whites 73 Years and Older: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Glaucoma Study. Arch Ophthalmol, November 1, 2006; 124(11): 1625 - 1630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Henson and S. Shambhu Relative Risk of Progressive Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss in Patients Enrolled and Not Enrolled in a Prospective Longitudinal Study Arch Ophthalmol, October 1, 2006; 124(10): 1405 - 1408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Barkana, Y. Gerber, R. Mora, J. M. Liebmann, and R. Ritch Effect of eye testing order on automated perimetry results using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard 24-2. Arch Ophthalmol, June 1, 2006; 124(6): 781 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Musch, B. W. Gillespie, B. M. Motyka, L. M. Niziol, R. P. Mills, P. R. Lichter, and on behalf of the CIGTS Study Group Converting to SITA-Standard from Full-Threshold Visual Field Testing in the Follow-up Phase of a Clinical Trial Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., August 1, 2005; 46(8): 2755 - 2759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Boden, J. Pascual, F. A. Medeiros, M. Aihara, R. N. Weinreb, and P. A. Sample Relationship of SITA and Full-Threshold Standard Perimetry to Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2433 - 2439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Artes, D. M. Hutchison, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Threshold and Variability Properties of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2451 - 2457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bjerre, J. R. Grigg, N. R. A. Parry, and D. B. Henson Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2004; 45(11): 4035 - 4040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Phipps, T. M. Dang, A. J. Vingrys, and R. H. Guymer Flicker Perimetry Losses in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 3355 - 3360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. McKendrick and D. R. Badcock Decreased Visual Field Sensitivity Measured 1 Day, Then 1 Week, after Migraine Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2004; 45(4): 1061 - 1070. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Turpin, A. M. McKendrick, C. A. Johnson, and A. J. Vingrys Properties of Perimetric Threshold Estimates from Full Threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like Strategies, as Determined by Computer Simulation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2003; 44(11): 4787 - 4795. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Vesti, C. A. Johnson, and B. C. Chauhan Comparison of Different Methods for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2003; 44(9): 3873 - 3879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Artes, D. B. Henson, R. Harper, and D. McLeod Multisampling Suprathreshold Perimetry: A Comparison with Conventional Suprathreshold and Full-Threshold Strategies by Computer Simulation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2003; 44(6): 2582 - 2587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
