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
Shields Classification
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Related Articles5
Evaluation of visual function and OCT parameters in ethambutol-induced optic neuropathy: a longitudinal study.
Cohort StudyPrimary Visual Pathway Changes in Individuals With Chronic Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
Case-Control StudyStructure-Function Associations Between Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function And Peripapillary Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Diabetic Retinopathy.
Cross-Sectional StudyRelating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed With Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss Due to Glaucoma and NAION.
Observational StudyHigh-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.
Prospective StudiesIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.