Bengtsson B, Heijl A
Department of Ophthalmology, Malmö University Hospital, Sweden.
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998 Aug;76(4):431-7. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760408.x.
To describe and evaluate the new rapid SITA Fast computerized perimetric threshold strategy.
Computer simulations of visual fields were used to develop a new rapid threshold strategy, SITA Fast. In a clinical evaluation 30 patients were examined twice with each of the Full Threshold, Fastpac and SITA Fast strategies.
SITA Fast had significantly shorter test time using on average 34% of the test time when compared to the Full Threshold strategy (p<0.0001) and 53% compared to Fastpac (p<0.0001). Reproducibility, calculated as the average Root Mean Square Error, was 1.84 dB in SITA tests, and 1.99 dB and 2.02 dB with Full Threshold and Fastpac, respectively. Both SITA Fast and Fastpac showed slightly higher sensitivities on average than theoretically expected. Sensitivity differences were larger in eyes with large differences in test time. Defects detected by SITA Fast were often deep and more localised than those detected by the Full Threshold and the Fastpac strategies.
SITA Fast tests were considerably shorter than Fastpac tests. The low test-retest variability found in the SITA Fast tests implies that it may be a sensitive test for detection of field progression.
描述并评估新的快速瑞典交互阈值算法(SITA)快速计算机视野阈值策略。
利用视野的计算机模拟来开发一种新的快速阈值策略,即SITA快速算法。在一项临床评估中,30名患者分别使用全阈值、快速pac和SITA快速算法进行了两次检查。
与全阈值策略相比,SITA快速算法的测试时间显著缩短,平均使用的测试时间为全阈值策略的34%(p<0.0001);与快速pac相比为53%(p<0.0001)。以平均均方根误差计算的可重复性,在SITA测试中为1.84 dB,全阈值和快速pac分别为1.99 dB和2.02 dB。SITA快速算法和快速pac平均灵敏度均略高于理论预期。在测试时间差异较大的眼睛中,灵敏度差异更大。SITA快速算法检测到的缺陷通常比全阈值和快速pac策略检测到的更深且更局限。
SITA快速算法测试比快速pac测试时间短得多。SITA快速算法测试中发现的低重测变异性表明它可能是检测视野进展的一种敏感测试。