• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

10-2 SITA标准算法与快速算法的特性及比较

Characterization and comparison of the 10-2 SITA-standard and fast algorithms.

作者信息

Barkana Yaniv, Bakshi Erez, Goldich Yakov, Morad Yair, Kaplan Audrey, Avni Isaac, Zadok David

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin 73000, Israel.

出版信息

ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:821802. doi: 10.1100/2012/821802. Epub 2012 May 2.

DOI:10.1100/2012/821802
PMID:22654632
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3354663/
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast visual field programs in patients with glaucoma.

METHODS

We enrolled 26 patients with open angle glaucoma with involvement of at least one paracentral location on 24-2 SITA-standard field test. Each subject performed 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast tests. Within 2 months this sequence of tests was repeated.

RESULTS

SITA-fast was 30% shorter than SITA-standard (5.5 ± 1.1 vs 7.9 ± 1.1 minutes, P < 0.001). Mean MD was statistically significantly higher for SITA-standard compared with SITA-fast at first visit (Δ = 0.3 dB, P = 0.017) but not second visit. Inter-visit difference in MD or in number of depressed points was not significant for both programs. Bland-Altman analysis showed that clinically significant variations can exist in individual instances between the 2 programs and between repeat tests with the same program.

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-2 SITA-fast algorithm is significantly shorter than SITA-standard. The two programs have similar long-term variability. Average same-visit between-program and same-program between-visit sensitivity results were similar for the study population, but clinically significant variability was observed for some individual test pairs. Group inter- and intra-program test results may be comparable, but in the management of the individual patient field change should be verified by repeat testing.

摘要

目的

比较青光眼患者中10-2 SITA标准和SITA快速视野检查程序。

方法

我们纳入了26例开角型青光眼患者，这些患者在24-2 SITA标准视野检查中至少有一个旁中心部位受累。每位受试者均进行10-2 SITA标准和SITA快速检查。在2个月内重复此检查序列。

结果

SITA快速检查比SITA标准检查短30%（5.5±1.1分钟对7.9±1.1分钟，P<0.001）。首次就诊时，SITA标准检查的平均MD在统计学上显著高于SITA快速检查（差值=0.3 dB，P=0.017），但第二次就诊时并非如此。两个检查程序的MD或压低点数的就诊间差异均无统计学意义。Bland-Altman分析表明，两个检查程序之间以及同一检查程序的重复检查之间，个别情况下可能存在临床显著差异。

结论

10-2 SITA快速算法比SITA标准算法显著更短。两个检查程序具有相似的长期变异性。对于研究人群，平均同次就诊时不同检查程序之间以及同程序不同就诊之间的敏感性结果相似，但在一些个别测试对中观察到临床显著差异。组内和组间的检查结果可能具有可比性，但在个体患者的管理中，视野变化应通过重复检查来验证。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/c7e07a0a2c68/TSWJ2012-821802.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/16f6e77f0431/TSWJ2012-821802.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/330e43fd8891/TSWJ2012-821802.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/b2197b577b5a/TSWJ2012-821802.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/fa71591f6a6f/TSWJ2012-821802.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/b31cf6533a78/TSWJ2012-821802.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/c7e07a0a2c68/TSWJ2012-821802.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/16f6e77f0431/TSWJ2012-821802.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/330e43fd8891/TSWJ2012-821802.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/b2197b577b5a/TSWJ2012-821802.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/fa71591f6a6f/TSWJ2012-821802.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/b31cf6533a78/TSWJ2012-821802.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb1a/3354663/c7e07a0a2c68/TSWJ2012-821802.006.jpg

相似文献

1
Characterization and comparison of the 10-2 SITA-standard and fast algorithms.10-2 SITA标准算法与快速算法的特性及比较
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:821802. doi: 10.1100/2012/821802. Epub 2012 May 2.
2
The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.青光眼的SITA视野阈值算法
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Aug;40(9):1998-2009.
3
Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer.便携式平板电脑与 Humphrey 视野分析仪的 6 个月纵向比较。
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun;190:9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.03.009. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
4
A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.一种新的 SITA 周边视野阈值测试算法：构建和多中心临床研究。
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Feb;198:154-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
5
Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.早期青光眼患者中快蓝黄视野检查与标准自动视野计检查的诊断敏感性：不同检测程序的比较
Ophthalmology. 2006 Jul;113(7):1092-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.12.028.
6
Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.瑞典交互式阈值算法对青光眼性视野缺损的敏感性和特异性。
Ophthalmology. 2002 Jun;109(6):1052-8. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01047-3.
7
[Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma].[Humphrey视野计程序SITA标准和SITA快速在正常受试者和青光眼患者中的评估]
J Fr Ophtalmol. 1998 Oct;21(8):549-54.
8
Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.颅内肿瘤患者视野检查中，Humphrey视野分析仪瑞典交互式阈值算法的30-2标准程序与快速程序的比较。
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov;65(11):1198-1202. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_315_17.
9
Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.全阈值、SITA标准和SITA快速策略的视野阈值估计特性。
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Aug;43(8):2654-9.
10
Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study.标准自动视野计、全阈值及瑞典交互式阈值算法策略的视野终点标准的可重复性：青光眼研究中的诊断创新
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Dec;144(6):908-913. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.042. Epub 2007 Oct 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors.颅内肿瘤患者视野检查中，Humphrey视野分析仪瑞典交互式阈值算法的30-2标准程序与快速程序的比较。
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov;65(11):1198-1202. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_315_17.

本文引用的文献

1
Long-term survival of central visual field in end-stage glaucoma.晚期青光眼患者中心视野的长期存活情况。
Ophthalmology. 2008 Jul;115(7):1162-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.09.004. Epub 2007 Dec 11.
2
Effect of eye testing order on automated perimetry results using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard 24-2.使用瑞典交互式阈值算法标准24-2时，视力测试顺序对自动视野计结果的影响。
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun;124(6):781-4. doi: 10.1001/archopht.124.6.781.
3
Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.
使用标准全阈值和瑞典交互式阈值算法比较青光眼性视野缺损
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Sep;120(9):1136-41. doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.9.1136.
4
Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.在Humphrey视野检测中，瑞典交互式阈值算法与标准全阈值算法的敏感性比较
Ophthalmology. 2000 Jul;107(7):1303-8. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00140-8.
5
The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.青光眼的SITA视野阈值算法
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Aug;40(9):1998-2009.
6
Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies.使用瑞典交互阈值算法（SITA）和全阈值策略比较青光眼性视野缺损的显著性和严重程度。
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999 Apr;77(2):143-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1999.770205.x.
7
Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm.算法间、个体间正常视野敏感度差异：全阈值、FASTPAC和瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）。
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 May;40(6):1152-61.
8
Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma.对一种新的视野阈值策略——瑞典交互阈值算法（SITA）在显性和可疑青光眼患者中的评估。
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998 Jun;76(3):268-72. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760303.x.
9
Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm.正常受试者中一种新的阈值视野检查策略——瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）的评估。
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998 Apr;76(2):165-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760208.x.
10
Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry.单次自动静态阈值视野检查期间的疲劳效应
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994 Jan;35(1):268-80.