Advanced

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

Heijl, Anders LU ; Patella, Vincent Michael; Chong, Luke X.; Iwase, Aiko; Leung, Christopher K.; Tuulonen, Anja; Lee, Gary C.; Callan, Thomas and Bengtsson, Boel LU (2019) In American Journal of Ophthalmology 198. p.154-165
Abstract

Purpose: 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... (More)

Purpose: 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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
American Journal of Ophthalmology
volume
198
pages
12 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85057627834
ISSN
0002-9394
DOI
10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
4c1e0dfa-17a0-44b1-9a64-ef2330713bee
date added to LUP
2018-12-17 14:29:16
date last changed
2019-01-06 14:20:14
@article{4c1e0dfa-17a0-44b1-9a64-ef2330713bee,
  abstract     = {<p>Purpose: 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 &lt;.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.</p>},
  author       = {Heijl, Anders and Patella, Vincent Michael and Chong, Luke X. and Iwase, Aiko and Leung, Christopher K. and Tuulonen, Anja and Lee, Gary C. and Callan, Thomas and Bengtsson, Boel},
  issn         = {0002-9394},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {154--165},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {American Journal of Ophthalmology},
  title        = {A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm : Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010},
  volume       = {198},
  year         = {2019},
}