Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Graefes Arch Clin Exp OphthalmolAugust 20150 citations

Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.

Hirasawa Kazunori, Shoji Nobuyuki


AI Summary

This study found SITA algorithms detect induced central visual field defects as shallower and wider, with higher global indices, compared to FT/FP. Clinicians need caution when interpreting SITA results.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the characteristic appearance of induced central visual field defects unrelated to the nerve fiber layer on standard automated perimetry using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA), and to compare the findings to the appearance on existing Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms.

Methods

Thirty right eyes of 30 healthy young participants were examined using four Humphrey 24-2 program algorithms: FT, FP, SITA-Standard (SS), and SITA-Fast (SF). Central visual field defects were induced using a high-density white opacity filter centered on a plano lens. The test duration, fovea threshold, mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and defect size and depth were compared among all algorithms.

Results

The mean test duration was 21 % to 71 % shorter (p < 0.01), the fovea threshold 0.9 to 2.6 dB higher (p < 0.05), MS 1.1 to 1.7 dB higher (p < 0.05), MD 0.84 to 1.48 dB higher, PSD 0.33 to 0.60 lower, and VFI 2 % higher (p < 0.05) on SS and SF than on FT and FP. The defect size was approximately four points larger and the defect depth 127 to 156 dB shallower on SS and SF than on FT and FP (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Central visual field defects unrelated to the nerve fiber layer were wider and shallower and global indices were higher on SITA than on conventional FT and FP. These findings indicate that careful attention is required when converting from FT and FP to SITA.


MeSH Terms

AdultAlgorithmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleNerve FibersPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySensory ThresholdsSwedenVision DisordersVisual Field TestsVisual FieldsYoung Adult

Key Concepts5

The mean test duration was 21% to 71% shorter (p < 0.01) on SITA-Standard (SS) and SITA-Fast (SF) algorithms compared to Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms in 30 right eyes of 30 healthy young participants with induced central visual field defects.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalComparative Cross-sectional Studyn=30 right eyes of 30 healthy young par…Ch5Ch6

The fovea threshold was 0.9 to 2.6 dB higher (p < 0.05) on SITA-Standard (SS) and SITA-Fast (SF) algorithms compared to Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms in 30 right eyes of 30 healthy young participants with induced central visual field defects.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalComparative Cross-sectional Studyn=30 right eyes of 30 healthy young par…Ch5Ch6

Mean sensitivity (MS) was 1.1 to 1.7 dB higher (p < 0.05) on SITA-Standard (SS) and SITA-Fast (SF) algorithms compared to Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms in 30 right eyes of 30 healthy young participants with induced central visual field defects.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalComparative Cross-sectional Studyn=30 right eyes of 30 healthy young par…Ch5Ch6

The defect size was approximately four points larger and the defect depth 127 to 156 dB shallower (p < 0.01) on SITA-Standard (SS) and SITA-Fast (SF) algorithms compared to Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms in 30 right eyes of 30 healthy young participants with induced central visual field defects.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalComparative Cross-sectional Studyn=30 right eyes of 30 healthy young par…Ch5Ch6

Central visual field defects unrelated to the nerve fiber layer were wider and shallower and global indices were higher on SITA algorithms than on conventional Full Threshold (FT) and FASTPAC (FP) algorithms, necessitating careful attention when converting between these perimetry methods.

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalComparative Cross-sectional Studyn=30 right eyes of 30 healthy young par…Ch5Ch6

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.