Cargando…
Characterization and Comparison of the 10-2 SITA-Standard and Fast Algorithms
Purpose: To compare the 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast visual field programs in patients with glaucoma. Methods: We enrolled 26 patients with open angle glaucoma with involvement of at least one paracentral location on 24-2 SITA-standard field test. Each subject performed 10-2 SITA-standard and SI...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Scientific World Journal
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22654632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/821802 |
Sumario: | Purpose: To compare the 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast visual field programs in patients with glaucoma. Methods: We enrolled 26 patients with open angle glaucoma with involvement of at least one paracentral location on 24-2 SITA-standard field test. Each subject performed 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast tests. Within 2 months this sequence of tests was repeated. Results: SITA-fast was 30% shorter than SITA-standard (5.5 ± 1.1 vs 7.9 ± 1.1 minutes, P < 0.001). Mean MD was statistically significantly higher for SITA-standard compared with SITA-fast at first visit (Δ = 0.3 dB, P = 0.017) but not second visit. Inter-visit difference in MD or in number of depressed points was not significant for both programs. Bland-Altman analysis showed that clinically significant variations can exist in individual instances between the 2 programs and between repeat tests with the same program. Conclusions: The 10-2 SITA-fast algorithm is significantly shorter than SITA-standard. The two programs have similar long-term variability. Average same-visit between-program and same-program between-visit sensitivity results were similar for the study population, but clinically significant variability was observed for some individual test pairs. Group inter- and intra-program test results may be comparable, but in the management of the individual patient field change should be verified by repeat testing. |
---|