Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales.
School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Dec;208:251-264. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.08.013. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
To compare the visual fields results obtained using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Standard (SS) and the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-Faster (SFR) in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma and to quantify potential time-saving benefits of the SFR algorithm.
Prospective, cross-sectional study.
One randomly selected eye from 364 patients (77 normal subjects, 178 glaucoma suspects, and 109 patients with glaucoma) seen in a single institution underwent testing using both SS and SFR on the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Cumulative test time using each algorithm was compared after accounting for different rates of test reliability. Pointwise and cluster analysis was performed to determine whether there were systematic differences between algorithms.
Using SFR had a greater rate of unreliable results (29.3%) compared with SS (7.7%, P < .0001). This was mainly because of high false positive rates and seeding point errors. However, modeled test times showed that using SFR could obtain a greater number of reliable results within a shorter period of time. SFR resulted in higher sensitivity values (on average 0.5 dB for patients with glaucoma) that was greater under conditions of field loss (<19 dB). Cluster analysis showed no systematic patterns of sensitivity differences between algorithms.
After accounting for different rates of test reliability, SFR can result in significant time savings compared with SS. Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common sources of error for SFR. Results between algorithms are not directly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit <19 dB.
比较正常受试者、青光眼疑似患者和青光眼患者使用瑞典交互阈值算法-标准（SS）和瑞典交互阈值算法-快速（SFR）获得的视野结果，并量化 SFR 算法潜在的节省时间的益处。
前瞻性、横断面研究。
在一家机构就诊的 364 例患者（77 例正常受试者、178 例青光眼疑似患者和 109 例青光眼患者）中，随机选择一只眼，使用 Humphrey 视野分析仪同时进行 SS 和 SFR 测试。在考虑不同测试可靠性率后，比较使用每种算法的累积测试时间。进行逐点和聚类分析，以确定算法之间是否存在系统差异。
与 SS（7.7%，P<0.0001）相比，使用 SFR 的不可靠结果的发生率更高（29.3%）。这主要是因为假阳性率和起始点错误较高。然而，模拟的测试时间表明，SFR 可以在较短的时间内获得更多的可靠结果。SFR 导致更高的敏感性值（平均青光眼患者为 0.5dB），在视野损失（<19dB）下更高。聚类分析显示算法之间没有系统的敏感性差异模式。
在考虑不同的测试可靠性率后，与 SS 相比，SFR 可以显著节省时间。临床医生应注意假阳性率和起始点错误，因为这是 SFR 的常见错误源。算法之间的结果不能直接互换，尤其是如果存在<19dB 的视野缺损。
