PRéCIS:: Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Faster (SFR) saves considerable test time but needs further amendments for considering it to be an accurate test that can replace SITA Fast (SF) or SITA Standard (SS). PURPOSE: To compare visual field results obtained using SFR, SF, and SS programs in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study involving manifest patients with glaucoma and glaucoma suspects, perimetric outcomes of SFR, SF, and SS were compared. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation (PSD), Visual Field Index (VFI), foveal threshold, number of points depressed at P<5%, P<2%, P<1%, and P<0.5% on PSD probability plot, individual threshold test points, glaucoma hemifield test, and grade of field defect. RESULTS: Seventy eyes of 70 patients were included in this study. SFR test times averaged 36.1% shorter than SF and 60.7% shorter than SS (P<0.001). Mean deviation values were lower with SFR compared with both SF and SS (Δ=1.5, P<0.001). Mean PSD and VFI showed no significant differences between the algorithms. The mean foveal threshold was higher for SFR compared with SF (Δ=1.6, P<0.001) and SS (Δ=2.1, P<0.001). The number of points depressed at P<0.5% was lesser in SFR than in both SF and SS (P=0.002). Bland-Altman plots showed that considerable variability existed between the algorithms. CONCLUSION: SFR provides benefits in test time and shows similar VFI compared with SF and SS. However, the detection of early cases with SFR is questionable and few modifications are needed in the future to improve its accuracy. SF and SS gave almost similar results. The algorithms cannot be used interchangeably for the same patient on different test sessions.
PRéCIS:: Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Faster (SFR) saves considerable test time but needs further amendments for considering it to be an accurate test that can replace SITA Fast (SF) or SITA Standard (SS). PURPOSE: To compare visual field results obtained using SFR, SF, and SS programs in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study involving manifest patients with glaucoma and glaucoma suspects, perimetric outcomes of SFR, SF, and SS were compared. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation (PSD), Visual Field Index (VFI), foveal threshold, number of points depressed at P<5%, P<2%, P<1%, and P<0.5% on PSD probability plot, individual threshold test points, glaucoma hemifield test, and grade of field defect. RESULTS: Seventy eyes of 70 patients were included in this study. SFR test times averaged 36.1% shorter than SF and 60.7% shorter than SS (P<0.001). Mean deviation values were lower with SFR compared with both SF and SS (Δ=1.5, P<0.001). Mean PSD and VFI showed no significant differences between the algorithms. The mean foveal threshold was higher for SFR compared with SF (Δ=1.6, P<0.001) and SS (Δ=2.1, P<0.001). The number of points depressed at P<0.5% was lesser in SFR than in both SF and SS (P=0.002). Bland-Altman plots showed that considerable variability existed between the algorithms. CONCLUSION: SFR provides benefits in test time and shows similar VFI compared with SF and SS. However, the detection of early cases with SFR is questionable and few modifications are needed in the future to improve its accuracy. SF and SS gave almost similar results. The algorithms cannot be used interchangeably for the same patient on different test sessions.