Department of Ophthalmology, University of Campinas, Brazil.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Campinas, Brazil.
Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2023 Mar-Apr;6(2):129-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2022.08.006. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
To compare the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard (SS) and SITA Faster (SFR) strategies in normal individuals undergoing standard automated perimetry (SAP) for the first time.
Randomized, comparative, observational case series.
Seventy-four perimetry-naive healthy individuals.
All individuals underwent SAP 24-2 testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer III (model 850 Zeiss) using the SS and SFR strategies. One eye of each individual was tested. Test order between strategies was randomized, and an interval of 15 minutes was allowed between the tests.
The following variables were compared: test time, foveal threshold, false-positive errors, number of unreliable tests, mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and number of depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Specificity of the SS and SFR strategies were compared using Anderson's criteria for abnormal visual fields.
The SFR tests were 60.4% shorter in time compared with SS (P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly lower PSD (1.75 ± 0.80 decibel [dB] vs. 2.15 ± 1.25 dB; P = 0.016). There were no significant differences regarding the MD, VFI, foveal threshold, GHT, and number of points depressed at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total deviation and pattern deviation probability maps between SS and SFR. When all exams were analyzed and any of Anderson's criteria was applied, the specificity was 68% with SFR and 61% with SS (P = 0.250). The specificities observed with SFR and SS when only the first or second exams were analyzed were also similar (63% vs. 64% and 72% vs. 58%, respectively, P > 0.05).
The SS and SFR were associated with similar specificities in perimetry-naive individuals. The SFR did not increase the number of depressed points in the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Ophthalmologists should be aware that both strategies are associated with disturbingly high false-positive rates in perimetry-naive individuals.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
比较初次行标准自动化视野计（SAP）检查的正常个体中瑞典交互阈值算法（SITA）标准（SS）和 SITA 快速（SFR）策略。
随机、对照、观察性病例系列。
74 名初次行视野检查的健康个体。
所有个体均使用 Humphrey 视野分析仪 III（型号 850 Zeiss）进行 SS 和 SFR 策略的 24-2 测试。每个个体的一只眼接受测试。两种策略的测试顺序是随机的，两次测试之间允许间隔 15 分钟。
比较以下变量：测试时间、中央凹阈值、假阳性错误、不可靠测试的数量、平均偏差（MD）、视野指数（VFI）、模式标准差（PSD）、青光眼半视野测试（GHT）以及总偏差和模式偏差概率图上 P<5%、P<2%、P<1%和 P<0.5%的偏离点的数量。使用 Anderson 标准评估异常视野，比较 SS 和 SFR 策略的特异性。
与 SS 相比，SFR 测试时间缩短了 60.4%（P<0.001），且 PSD 显著降低（1.75±0.80 分贝[dB] vs. 2.15±1.25 dB；P=0.016）。在 MD、VFI、中央凹阈值、GHT 以及总偏差和模式偏差概率图上 P<5%、P<2%、P<1%和 P<0.5%的偏离点数量方面，SS 和 SFR 之间无显著差异。当分析所有检查并应用 Anderson 的任何一条标准时，SFR 的特异性为 68%，SS 为 61%（P=0.250）。仅分析第一次或第二次检查时，SFR 和 SS 的特异性也相似（分别为 63%比 64%和 72%比 58%，P>0.05）。
在初次行视野检查的个体中，SS 和 SFR 具有相似的特异性。SFR 并未增加总偏差和模式偏差概率图上的偏离点数量。眼科医生应注意到，两种策略在初次行视野检查的个体中均与令人不安的高假阳性率相关。
参考文献后可能有专有或商业披露。
