Suppr超能文献

青光眼患者视野评估的两种快速策略(SITA快速策略和TOP策略)的比较。

Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients.

作者信息

King A J W, Taguri A, Wadood A C, Azuara-Blanco A

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;240(6):481-7. doi: 10.1007/s00417-002-0482-y. Epub 2002 May 15.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare two fast threshold strategies of visual field assessment; SITA Fast (HSF) and Tendency Orientated Perimetry (TOP), in detecting visual field loss in patients with glaucoma.

METHODS

Seventy-six glaucoma, ocular hypertensive and normal patients had HSF and TOP performed in random order. Quantitative comparisons for the global visual field indices - mean deviation and defect (MD) for HSF and TOP, and pattern standard deviation (PSD) for HSF and loss variance (LV) for TOP - were made using correlation coefficients. Humphrey global parameters were converted to Octopus equivalents, and method comparison analysis was used to determine agreement between the two strategies. Test duration times were compared using t-test. Sensitivity and specificity for these two algorithms were determined according to predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

High correlation coefficient values were obtained for MD measurements between HSF and TOP ( r=-0.89, P<0.0005) and for PSD (HSF) and LV (TOP) ( r=0.88, P<0.0005). Following conversion of HSF values to Octopus equivalents the TOP strategy estimated MD to be greater and LV to be less than HSF values, the difference increasing as the magnitude of the defect increased. The mean test duration time was 4.04 (0.87) min for HSF and 2.38 (0.34) min for TOP ( P<0.0005). Sensitivity of diagnostic criteria ranged from 86.4% to 89.2% for HSF and from 84.7% to 85.2% for TOP. Specificity ranged from 80.0% to 93.8% for HSF and from 76.5% to 86.7% for TOP.

CONCLUSION

There was a high correlation between the HSF and TOP strategies for measurements of global indices. However, the TOP strategy tended to underestimate focal visual field loss compared with SITA Fast. The TOP strategy was faster than SITA Fast. The sensitivity and specificity of the two algorithms were similar. This study establishes the ability of these fast strategies to successfully assess visual fields in glaucoma patients with perimetric experience.

摘要

目的

比较两种快速视野评估阈值策略;瑞典交互式阈值算法快速版(HSF)和趋势导向视野检查法(TOP),以检测青光眼患者的视野缺损。

方法

76例青光眼、高眼压症和正常患者按随机顺序接受HSF和TOP检查。使用相关系数对整体视野指数进行定量比较——HSF和TOP的平均偏差和缺损(MD),以及HSF的模式标准偏差(PSD)和TOP的缺损方差(LV)。将Humphrey整体参数转换为Octopus等效值,并采用方法比较分析来确定两种策略之间的一致性。使用t检验比较检查持续时间。根据预定标准确定这两种算法的敏感性和特异性。

结果

HSF和TOP的MD测量值(r = -0.89,P < 0.0005)以及PSD(HSF)和LV(TOP)(r = 0.88,P < 0.0005)获得了较高的相关系数值。将HSF值转换为Octopus等效值后,TOP策略估计的MD值比HSF值大,LV值比HSF值小,随着缺损程度的增加,差异增大。HSF的平均检查持续时间为4.04(0.87)分钟,TOP为2.38(0.34)分钟(P < 0.0005)。HSF诊断标准的敏感性范围为86.4%至89.2%,TOP为84.7%至85.2%。特异性范围HSF为80.0%至93.8%,TOP为76.5%至86.7%。

结论

HSF和TOP策略在整体指数测量方面具有高度相关性。然而,与瑞典交互式阈值算法快速版相比,TOP策略倾向于低估局部视野缺损。TOP策略比瑞典交互式阈值算法快速版更快。两种算法的敏感性和特异性相似。本研究证实了这些快速策略在青光眼患者中成功评估视野的能力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验