Advanced

SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma

Bengtsson, B LU and Heijl, A LU (1998) In Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00 76(4). p.7-431
Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate the new rapid SITA Fast computerized perimetric threshold strategy.

METHOD: Computer simulations of visual fields were used to develop a new rapid threshold strategy, SITA Fast. In a clinical evaluation 30 patients were examined twice with each of the Full Threshold, Fastpac and SITA Fast strategies.

RESULTS: SITA Fast had significantly shorter test time using on average 34% of the test time when compared to the Full Threshold strategy (p<0.0001) and 53% compared to Fastpac (p<0.0001). Reproducibility, calculated as the average Root Mean Square Error, was 1.84 dB in SITA tests, and 1.99 dB and 2.02 dB with Full Threshold and Fastpac, respectively. Both SITA Fast and Fastpac showed... (More)

PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate the new rapid SITA Fast computerized perimetric threshold strategy.

METHOD: Computer simulations of visual fields were used to develop a new rapid threshold strategy, SITA Fast. In a clinical evaluation 30 patients were examined twice with each of the Full Threshold, Fastpac and SITA Fast strategies.

RESULTS: SITA Fast had significantly shorter test time using on average 34% of the test time when compared to the Full Threshold strategy (p<0.0001) and 53% compared to Fastpac (p<0.0001). Reproducibility, calculated as the average Root Mean Square Error, was 1.84 dB in SITA tests, and 1.99 dB and 2.02 dB with Full Threshold and Fastpac, respectively. Both SITA Fast and Fastpac showed slightly higher sensitivities on average than theoretically expected. Sensitivity differences were larger in eyes with large differences in test time. Defects detected by SITA Fast were often deep and more localised than those detected by the Full Threshold and the Fastpac strategies.

CONCLUSION: SITA Fast tests were considerably shorter than Fastpac tests. The low test-retest variability found in the SITA Fast tests implies that it may be a sensitive test for detection of field progression.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
keywords
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Computer Simulation, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sensory Thresholds, Vision Disorders, Visual Field Tests, Visual Fields
in
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00
volume
76
issue
4
pages
7 - 431
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • Scopus:0031845871
ISSN
1395-3907
DOI
10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760408.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
4d71e580-b591-4d93-a2ed-75a09c6a9caf
date added to LUP
2016-08-30 16:57:24
date last changed
2016-11-29 10:02:41
@misc{4d71e580-b591-4d93-a2ed-75a09c6a9caf,
  abstract     = {<p>PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate the new rapid SITA Fast computerized perimetric threshold strategy.</p><p>METHOD: Computer simulations of visual fields were used to develop a new rapid threshold strategy, SITA Fast. In a clinical evaluation 30 patients were examined twice with each of the Full Threshold, Fastpac and SITA Fast strategies.</p><p>RESULTS: SITA Fast had significantly shorter test time using on average 34% of the test time when compared to the Full Threshold strategy (p&lt;0.0001) and 53% compared to Fastpac (p&lt;0.0001). Reproducibility, calculated as the average Root Mean Square Error, was 1.84 dB in SITA tests, and 1.99 dB and 2.02 dB with Full Threshold and Fastpac, respectively. Both SITA Fast and Fastpac showed slightly higher sensitivities on average than theoretically expected. Sensitivity differences were larger in eyes with large differences in test time. Defects detected by SITA Fast were often deep and more localised than those detected by the Full Threshold and the Fastpac strategies.</p><p>CONCLUSION: SITA Fast tests were considerably shorter than Fastpac tests. The low test-retest variability found in the SITA Fast tests implies that it may be a sensitive test for detection of field progression.</p>},
  author       = {Bengtsson, B and Heijl, A},
  issn         = {1395-3907},
  keyword      = {Aged,Aged, 80 and over,Computer Simulation,Female,Glaucoma,Humans,Male,Middle Aged,Ocular Hypertension,Reproducibility of Results,Sensitivity and Specificity,Sensory Thresholds,Vision Disorders,Visual Field Tests,Visual Fields},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {7--431},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x8cdb628)},
  series       = {Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760408.x},
  volume       = {76},
  year         = {1998},
}