File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study

TitleA New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study
Authors
Issue Date2019
Citation
American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2019, v. 198, p. 154-165 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field–testing strategy—Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast—and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. Design: Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. Methods: Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. Results: Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P <.001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P =.007) and SITA Faster (P =.002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test–retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. Conclusions: SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/298601
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.1
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.296
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHeijl, Anders-
dc.contributor.authorPatella, Vincent Michael-
dc.contributor.authorChong, Luke X.-
dc.contributor.authorIwase, Aiko-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Christopher K.-
dc.contributor.authorTuulonen, Anja-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Gary C.-
dc.contributor.authorCallan, Thomas-
dc.contributor.authorBengtsson, Boel-
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-08T03:08:50Z-
dc.date.available2021-04-08T03:08:50Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2019, v. 198, p. 154-165-
dc.identifier.issn0002-9394-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/298601-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field–testing strategy—Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast—and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. Design: Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. Methods: Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. Results: Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P <.001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P =.007) and SITA Faster (P =.002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test–retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. Conclusions: SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleA New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010-
dc.identifier.pmid30336129-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85057627834-
dc.identifier.volume198-
dc.identifier.spage154-
dc.identifier.epage165-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1891-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000458095500019-
dc.identifier.issnl0002-9394-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats