Cargando…

The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two conventional reliability criteria (false positives [FPs] and seeding point errors [SPEs]) and the concurrent effect of low sensitivity points (≤19 dB) on intrasession SITA-Faster visual field (VF) result correlations. METHODS: Ther...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phu, Jack, Kalloniatis, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8842500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35142783
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.2.20
_version_ 1784651061874655232
author Phu, Jack
Kalloniatis, Michael
author_facet Phu, Jack
Kalloniatis, Michael
author_sort Phu, Jack
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two conventional reliability criteria (false positives [FPs] and seeding point errors [SPEs]) and the concurrent effect of low sensitivity points (≤19 dB) on intrasession SITA-Faster visual field (VF) result correlations. METHODS: There were 2320 intrasession SITA-Faster VF results from 1160 eyes of healthy, glaucoma suspects, and subjects with glaucoma that were separated into “both reliable” or “reliable-unreliable” pairs. VF results (mean deviation and pointwise sensitivity) were analyzed against the spectrum of FP rates and SPE, with and without censorship of sensitivity results ≤19 dB. Segmental linear regression was used to identify critical points where visual field results were significantly different between tests due to FP levels. RESULTS: There was a significant, but small (0.09 dB per 1% exceeding 12%) increase in mean deviation, and an increase in the number of points showing a >3 dB sensitivity increase (0.25–0.28 locations per 1% exceeding 12%). SPEs were almost exclusively related to a decrease in sensitivity at the primary seeding points but did not result in significant differences in other indices. Censoring sensitivity results ≤19 dB significantly improved the correlation between reliable and unreliable results. CONCLUSIONS: Current criteria for judging an unreliable VF result (FP rate >15% and SPE) can lead to data being erroneously excluded, as many results do not show significant differences compared to those deemed “reliable.” Censoring of sensitivity results ≤19 dB improves intrasession correlations in VF results. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: We provide guidelines for assessing the impact of FP, SPE, and low sensitivity results on VF interpretation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8842500
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88425002022-02-18 The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster Phu, Jack Kalloniatis, Michael Transl Vis Sci Technol Article PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two conventional reliability criteria (false positives [FPs] and seeding point errors [SPEs]) and the concurrent effect of low sensitivity points (≤19 dB) on intrasession SITA-Faster visual field (VF) result correlations. METHODS: There were 2320 intrasession SITA-Faster VF results from 1160 eyes of healthy, glaucoma suspects, and subjects with glaucoma that were separated into “both reliable” or “reliable-unreliable” pairs. VF results (mean deviation and pointwise sensitivity) were analyzed against the spectrum of FP rates and SPE, with and without censorship of sensitivity results ≤19 dB. Segmental linear regression was used to identify critical points where visual field results were significantly different between tests due to FP levels. RESULTS: There was a significant, but small (0.09 dB per 1% exceeding 12%) increase in mean deviation, and an increase in the number of points showing a >3 dB sensitivity increase (0.25–0.28 locations per 1% exceeding 12%). SPEs were almost exclusively related to a decrease in sensitivity at the primary seeding points but did not result in significant differences in other indices. Censoring sensitivity results ≤19 dB significantly improved the correlation between reliable and unreliable results. CONCLUSIONS: Current criteria for judging an unreliable VF result (FP rate >15% and SPE) can lead to data being erroneously excluded, as many results do not show significant differences compared to those deemed “reliable.” Censoring of sensitivity results ≤19 dB improves intrasession correlations in VF results. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: We provide guidelines for assessing the impact of FP, SPE, and low sensitivity results on VF interpretation. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8842500/ /pubmed/35142783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.2.20 Text en Copyright 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Article
Phu, Jack
Kalloniatis, Michael
The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title_full The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title_fullStr The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title_full_unstemmed The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title_short The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster
title_sort frontloading fields study: the impact of false positives and seeding point errors on visual field reliability when using sita-faster
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8842500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35142783
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.2.20
work_keys_str_mv AT phujack thefrontloadingfieldsstudytheimpactoffalsepositivesandseedingpointerrorsonvisualfieldreliabilitywhenusingsitafaster
AT kalloniatismichael thefrontloadingfieldsstudytheimpactoffalsepositivesandseedingpointerrorsonvisualfieldreliabilitywhenusingsitafaster
AT phujack frontloadingfieldsstudytheimpactoffalsepositivesandseedingpointerrorsonvisualfieldreliabilitywhenusingsitafaster
AT kalloniatismichael frontloadingfieldsstudytheimpactoffalsepositivesandseedingpointerrorsonvisualfieldreliabilitywhenusingsitafaster