Purchase this article with an account.
R. Schimiti, E.S. Arcieri, R.R. Avelino, T. Matsuo, V.P. Costa; SITA vs. Full Threshold in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3296.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To compare the results of the Full Threshold (FT) and SITA Standard (SS) strategies in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. Methods: Thirty one glaucomatous patients (defined on the basis of structural abnormalities in the optic nerve and or retinal nerve fiber layer) who had never undergone automated perimetry were included. All patients underwent automated perimetry (Humphrey, program 30–2) with both the FT and SS strategies on the same day, with an interval of at least two hours. The order of the exams was randomized, and only one eye per patient was analyzed. Three analyses were performed, including: a) all the exams, regardless of the order of application; b) only the first exams; c) only the second exams. In order to calculate the sensitivity of both strategies, the following criteria were used to define abnormality: GHT outside normal limits, PSD<5%, or a cluster of 3 adjacent points with p<5% at the pattern deviation probability plot. Results: Among the 31 patients, 15 were considered to have mild, 5 moderate, and 16 severe glaucomatous damage. When the results of all exams were analyzed regardless of the order in which they were performed, the number of depressed points with p<0.5% in the pattern deviation probability map was significantly greater with SS (p=0.037), and the sensitivities were 87.1% for SS and 77.4% for FT (p=0.506). When only the first exams were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, but the sensitivity of SS (100%) was significantly greater than that obtained with FT (70.6%) (p=0.048). When only the second exams were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points and the sensitivities of SS (76.5%) and FT (85.7%) (p= 0.664). The duration of the test was significantly lower and the foveal threshold was significantly higher for SS in all 3 analyzes (p<0.05). Conclusion: SS may have a higher sensitivity than FT in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. However, this difference tends to disappear in subsequent examinations.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only