December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Properties of threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • PH Artes
    Ophthalmology Dalhousie University Halifax NS Canada
  • A Iwase
    Ophthalmology Tajimi Municipal Hospital Gifu Japan
  • Y Ohno
    Faculty of Medicine Osaka University Osaka Japan
  • Y Kitazawa
    Kitazawa Eye Clinic Tokyo Japan
  • BC Chauhan
    Ophthalmology Dalhousie University Halifax NS Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   P.H. Artes, None; A. Iwase, None; Y. Ohno, None; Y. Kitazawa, None; B.C. Chauhan, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 2145. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      PH Artes, A Iwase, Y Ohno, Y Kitazawa, BC Chauhan; Properties of threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast perimetry . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):2145.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare the distributional properties of threshold estimates of SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Full Threshold algorithm, and to investigate the pointwise test/retest variability of these strategies. Method: Forty-nine patients (mean age, 61.6 yrs, range 22 - 81 yrs) with glaucomatous visual field loss (MD, mean -7.13 dB, range +1.76, -23.86 dB) attended for 4 sessions in one-week intervals. During each session, one randomly selected eye was examined with each of the 3 strategies, in random order. The SITA Standard and SITA Fast threshold distributions were compared to a 'best available' estimate of sensitivity, derived from the mean of 3 Full Threshold tests. Pointwise 90% retest limits (the 5th and 95th percentiles of the retest thresholds, stratified by initial threshold in steps of 2 dB) were derived to assess the reproducibility of individual threshold estimates. Results: The differences between SITA Standard, SITA Fast and the Full Threshold strategy varied non-linearly with sensitivity; they were largest (∼3 dB) for mid-range values of sensitivity (∼15 dB). The shapes of the threshold distributions of SITA Standard and SITA Fast varied considerably from that of the Full Threshold strategy. At field locations with sensitivities ≷25 dB, both SITA Standard and SITA Fast exhibited lower test/retest variability than the Full Threshold strategy. At locations with sensitivities <25 dB, the retest intervals of SITA Standard were slightly smaller than those of the Full Threshold strategy, whereas those of SITA Fast were larger. Conclusion: The systematic, non-linear differences between the threshold estimates of SITA and those of the Full Threshold strategy may be due to the a priori probability density functions used in SITA. These differences appear small compared to the pointwise test/retest variability. Compared to Full Threshold, SITA Standard showed slightly lower test/retest variability across the entire range of sensitivities, whereas SITA Fast gave more variable estimates when sensitivity was reduced.

Keywords: 511 perimetry • 624 visual fields 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×