Jack Phu1, Sieu K Khuu2, Ashish Agar3, Michael Kalloniatis4. 1. Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales. Electronic address: jphu@cfeh.com.au. 2. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales. 3. Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales; Department of Ophthalmology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales. 4. Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the visual fields results obtained using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Standard (SS) and the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Faster (SFR) in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma and to quantify potential time-saving benefits of the SFR algorithm. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: One randomly selected eye from 364 patients (77 normal subjects, 178 glaucoma suspects, and 109 patients with glaucoma) seen in a single institution underwent testing using both SS and SFR on the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Cumulative test time using each algorithm was compared after accounting for different rates of test reliability. Pointwise and cluster analysis was performed to determine whether there were systematic differences between algorithms. RESULTS: Using SFR had a greater rate of unreliable results (29.3%) compared with SS (7.7%, P < .0001). This was mainly because of high false positive rates and seeding point errors. However, modeled test times showed that using SFR could obtain a greater number of reliable results within a shorter period of time. SFR resulted in higher sensitivity values (on average 0.5 dB for patients with glaucoma) that was greater under conditions of field loss (<19 dB). Cluster analysis showed no systematic patterns of sensitivity differences between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for different rates of test reliability, SFR can result in significant time savings compared with SS. Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common sources of error for SFR. Results between algorithms are not directly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit <19 dB.
PURPOSE: To compare the visual fields results obtained using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Standard (SS) and the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Faster (SFR) in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma and to quantify potential time-saving benefits of the SFR algorithm. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: One randomly selected eye from 364 patients (77 normal subjects, 178 glaucoma suspects, and 109 patients with glaucoma) seen in a single institution underwent testing using both SS and SFR on the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Cumulative test time using each algorithm was compared after accounting for different rates of test reliability. Pointwise and cluster analysis was performed to determine whether there were systematic differences between algorithms. RESULTS: Using SFR had a greater rate of unreliable results (29.3%) compared with SS (7.7%, P < .0001). This was mainly because of high false positive rates and seeding point errors. However, modeled test times showed that using SFR could obtain a greater number of reliable results within a shorter period of time. SFR resulted in higher sensitivity values (on average 0.5 dB for patients with glaucoma) that was greater under conditions of field loss (<19 dB). Cluster analysis showed no systematic patterns of sensitivity differences between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for different rates of test reliability, SFR can result in significant time savings compared with SS. Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common sources of error for SFR. Results between algorithms are not directly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit <19 dB.
Authors: Tutul Chakravarti; Mohamad Moghadam; James A Proudfoot; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher Bowd; Linda M Zangwill Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.290