全阈值、SITA标准和SITA快速策略的视野阈值估计特性。

Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.

作者信息

Artes Paul H, Iwase Aiko, Ohno Yuko, Kitazawa Yoshiaki, Chauhan Balwantray C

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

出版信息

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Aug;43(8):2654-9.

PMID:12147599

Abstract

PURPOSE

To investigate the distributions of threshold estimates with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithms (SITA) Standard, SITA Fast, and the Full Threshold algorithm (Humphrey Field Analyzer; Zeiss-Humphrey Instruments, Dublin, CA) and to compare the pointwise test-retest variability of these strategies.

METHODS

One eye of 49 patients (mean age, 61.6 years; range, 22-81) with glaucoma (Mean Deviation mean, -7.13 dB; range, +1.8 to -23.9 dB) was examined four times with each of the three strategies. The mean and median SITA Standard and SITA Fast threshold estimates were compared with a "best available" estimate of sensitivity (mean results of three Full Threshold tests). Pointwise 90% retest limits (5th and 95th percentiles of retest thresholds) were derived to assess the reproducibility of individual threshold estimates.

RESULTS

The differences between the threshold estimates of the SITA and Full Threshold strategies were largest ( approximately 3 dB) for midrange sensitivities ( approximately 15 dB). The threshold distributions of SITA were considerably different from those of the Full Threshold strategy. The differences remained of similar magnitude when the analysis was repeated on a subset of 20 locations that are examined early during the course of a Full Threshold examination. With sensitivities above 25 dB, both SITA strategies exhibited lower test-retest variability than the Full Threshold strategy. Below 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.

CONCLUSIONS

SITA Standard may be superior to the Full Threshold strategy for monitoring patients with visual field loss. The greater test-retest variability of SITA Fast in areas of low sensitivity is likely to offset the benefit of even shorter test durations with this strategy. The sensitivity differences between the SITA and Full Threshold strategies may relate to factors other than reduced fatigue. They are, however, small in comparison to the test-retest variability.

摘要

目的

研究瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）标准、SITA快速算法和全阈值算法（Humphrey视野分析仪；蔡司-汉弗莱仪器公司，加利福尼亚州都柏林）的阈值估计分布情况，并比较这些策略的逐点重测变异性。

方法

对49例青光眼患者（平均年龄61.6岁；范围22 - 81岁）的一只眼睛，分别使用三种策略各检查4次。将SITA标准和SITA快速算法的平均及中位数阈值估计与敏感度的“最佳可用”估计值（三次全阈值测试的平均结果）进行比较。得出逐点90%重测界限（重测阈值的第5和第95百分位数）以评估个体阈值估计的可重复性。

结果

对于中等范围敏感度（约15 dB），SITA和全阈值策略的阈值估计差异最大（约3 dB）。SITA的阈值分布与全阈值策略有显著差异。在全阈值检查早期检查的20个位置的子集中重复分析时，差异仍保持相似幅度。当敏感度高于25 dB时，两种SITA策略的重测变异性均低于全阈值策略。低于25 dB时，SITA标准的重测间隔略小于全阈值策略，而SITA快速算法的重测间隔则更大。