Clinical evaluation of SITA-Faster compared to SITA-Standard in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients.

Clicks: 224
ID: 29092
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #42 of 48 articles by views in American journal of ophthalmology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To compare the visual fields results obtained using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard (SS) and Faster (SFR), in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients, and to quantify potential time-saving benefits of the SFR algorithm.Prospective, cross-sectional study.One randomly selected eye from 364 patients (77 normal, 178 glaucoma suspect and 109 glaucoma) seen in a single institution underwent testing using both SS and SFR on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA3). Cumulative test time using each algorithm was compared after accounting for different rates of test reliability. Pointwise and cluster analysis was performed to determine whether there were systematic differences between algorithms.Using SFR had a greater rate of unreliable results (29.3%) compared to SS (7.7%, p < 0.0001). This was mainly due to high false positive rates and seeding point errors. However, modelled test times showed that using SFR could obtain a greater number of reliable results within a shorter period of time. SFR resulted in higher sensitivity values (on average 0.5 dB for glaucoma patients), which was greater under conditions of field loss (<19 dB). Cluster analysis showed no systematic patterns of sensitivity differences between algorithms.After accounting for different rates of test reliability, SFR can result in significant time savings compared to SS. Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common sources of error for SFR. Results between algorithms are not directly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit below 19 dB.
Reference Key
phu2019clinicalamerican Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Phu, Jack;Khuu, Sieu K;Agar, Ashish;Kalloniatis, Michael;
Journal American journal of ophthalmology
Year 2019
DOI
S0002-9394(19)30414-3
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.