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 ( approximately 3 dB) for midrange sensitivities ( approximately 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.
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 ( approximately 3 dB) for midrange sensitivities ( approximately 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.
Authors: Antje Kraft; Jasper Roehmel; Manuel C Olma; Sein Schmidt; Kerstin Irlbacher; Stephan A Brandt Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Hrvoje Bogunović; Young H Kwon; Adnan Rashid; Kyungmoo Lee; Douglas B Critser; Mona K Garvin; Milan Sonka; Michael D Abràmoff Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ryo Asaoka; Richard A Russell; Rizwan Malik; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 3.117