Bengtsson Boel, Heijl Anders
Department of Clinical Sciences, Ophthalmology, Malmö University Hospital, Lund University, SE 205 02 Malmö, Sweden.
Ophthalmology. 2006 Jul;113(7):1092-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.028.
To compare the ability of Fast Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), lengthier full-threshold SWAP, and standard automated perimetry (SAP) using the SITA Fast program to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss.
Cross-sectional prospective study of perimetric diagnostic sensitivity as defined by reference limits determined in the same healthy participants for all 3 test programs.
One hundred one patients with ocular hypertension, or suspect or early manifest glaucoma.
One eye of each patient was tested with 2 blue-yellow perimetric programs: the SITA and full-threshold SWAP and the SAP SITA Fast program.
Glaucomatous visual field loss, defined as number of significantly depressed test point locations or the number of clusters of such test points.
No significant difference in number of significantly depressed test point locations between the 3 programs could be detected, neither at the P<5% limit nor at the P<2% limit. The difference in number of points depressed below the fifth percentile was 0.5 between full-threshold SWAP and SITA SWAP, 1.09 between full-threshold SWAP and SAP, and 1.04 between SITA SWAP and SAP. The number of eyes showing clusters of significantly depressed points also was similar with the 3 test programs: full-threshold SWAP identified clusters in 66 eyes, SITA SWAP identified clusters in 67 eyes, and SITA Fast SAP identified clusters in 65 eyes. Average test time was 12.0 minutes using full-threshold SWAP, 4.1 minutes with SITA SWAP, and 3.5 with SITA Fast.
The SITA SWAP identified at least as much glaucomatous visual field loss as the older full-threshold SWAP, although test time was considerably reduced. Conventional SAP using SITA Fast was not significantly less sensitive than either of the 2 SWAP programs.
比较快速瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）短波长自动视野计（SWAP）、耗时更长的全阈值SWAP以及使用SITA快速程序的标准自动视野计（SAP）检测早期青光眼性视野缺损的能力。
一项横断面前瞻性研究，研究所有3种测试程序在相同健康参与者中确定的参考限值所定义的视野诊断敏感性。
101例高眼压症患者，或疑似或早期显性青光眼患者。
对每位患者的一只眼睛使用2种蓝黄视野计程序进行测试：SITA和全阈值SWAP以及SAP SITA快速程序。
青光眼性视野缺损，定义为显著压低的测试点位置数量或此类测试点的簇数量。
在P<5%限值和P<2%限值时，均未检测到3种程序之间显著压低的测试点位置数量有显著差异。全阈值SWAP和SITA SWAP之间低于第五百分位数的压低点数差异为0.5，全阈值SWAP和SAP之间为1.09，SITA SWAP和SAP之间为1.04。显示显著压低点簇的眼睛数量在3种测试程序中也相似：全阈值SWAP在66只眼中识别出簇，SITA SWAP在67只眼中识别出簇，SITA快速SAP在65只眼中识别出簇。使用全阈值SWAP的平均测试时间为12.0分钟，SITA SWAP为4.1分钟，SITA快速程序为3.5分钟。
SITA SWAP识别出的青光眼性视野缺损至少与较旧的全阈值SWAP一样多，尽管测试时间大幅缩短。使用SITA快速程序的传统SAP的敏感性不比2种SWAP程序中的任何一种显著降低。
