Schimiti Rui Barroso, Arcieri Enyr Saran, Avelino Rodrigo Rezende, Matsuo Tiemi, Costa Vital Paulino
Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2006 Mar-Apr;69(2):145-50. doi: 10.1590/s0004-27492006000200002. Epub 2006 May 8.
To compare the Full Threshold (FT) and SITA Standard (SS) strategies in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time.
Thirty-one glaucomatous patients who had never undergone perimetry underwent automated perimetry (Humphrey, program 30-2) with both FT and SS on the same day, with an interval of at least 15 minutes. The order of the examination was randomized, and only one eye per patient was analyzed. Three analyses were performed: a) all the examinations, regardless of the order of application; b) only the first examinations; c) only the second examinations. In order to calculate the sensitivity of both strategies, the following criteria were used to define abnormality: glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation (PSD) <5%, or a cluster of 3 adjacent points with p<5% at the pattern deviation probability plot.
When the results of all examinations 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 examinations 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 examinations 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).
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.
比较首次接受自动视野检查的青光眼患者采用全阈值（FT）和SITA标准（SS）策略的情况。
31例从未接受过视野检查的青光眼患者于同一天采用FT和SS两种方法进行自动视野检查（Humphrey，程序30-2），检查间隔至少15分钟。检查顺序随机，仅分析每位患者的一只眼睛。进行了三项分析：a）所有检查，无论应用顺序如何；b）仅首次检查；c）仅第二次检查。为计算两种策略的敏感性，采用以下标准定义异常：青光眼半视野检测（GHT）超出正常范围、模式标准差（PSD）<5%或模式偏差概率图上3个相邻点的簇且p<5%。
当分析所有检查结果而不考虑其执行顺序时，SS在模式偏差概率图中p<0.5%的压低点数显著更多（p=0.037），SS的敏感性为87.1%，FT为77.4%（p=0.506）。仅比较首次检查时，压低点数无统计学显著差异，但SS的敏感性（100%）显著高于FT（70.6%）（p=0.048）。仅比较第二次检查时，压低点数无统计学显著差异，SS的敏感性为76.5%，FT为85.7%（p=0.664）。
对于首次接受自动视野检查的青光眼患者，SS可能比FT具有更高的敏感性。然而，这种差异在后续检查中往往会消失。
