Suppr超能文献

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.

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/3354663/16f6e77f0431/TSWJ2012-821802.001.jpg

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