A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.

PURPOSE To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field-testing strategy-Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast-and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. DESIGN Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. METHODS Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. RESULTS Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P < .001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P = .007) and SITA Faster (P = .002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test-retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. CONCLUSIONS SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.

[1]  A. Alm,et al.  The Glaucoma Guidelines of the Swedish Ophthalmological Society , 2012, Acta ophthalmologica. Supplement.

[2]  Yasuyuki Suzuki,et al.  Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies , 1999, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[3]  S. Hahn,et al.  Evaluation of practice patterns for the care of open-angle glaucoma compared with claims data: the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[4]  Yuko Ohno,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  C A Johnson,et al.  Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. , 1992, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  J Katz,et al.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. , 1988, Archives of ophthalmology.

[7]  Alberto Diniz-Filho,et al.  Frequency of Testing to Detect Visual Field Progression Derived Using a Longitudinal Cohort of Glaucoma Patients. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[8]  N. Newman,et al.  Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice? , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[9]  H Bebie,et al.  STATIC PERIMETRY: STRATEGIES , 1976, Acta ophthalmologica.

[10]  A Heijl.  TIME CHANGES OF CONTRAST THRESHOLDS DURING AUTOMATIC PERIMETRY , 2009 .

[11]  H. Jampel,et al.  Natural history of normal-tension glaucoma. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[12]  Michael V. Boland,et al.  Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Wild,et al.  The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines , 2013, BMJ Open.

[15]  J. Wild,et al.  Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  D. Henson,et al.  Spatial Changes of Central Field Loss in Diabetic Retinopathy After Laser , 2014, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[17]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.

[18]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  A comparison of three methods for abbreviating G1 examinations. , 1989, Japanese journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  A Heijl,et al.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma , 2008, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[20]  C. Krakau,et al.  AN AUTOMATIC STATIC PERIMETER, DESIGN AND PILOT STUDY , 1975, Acta ophthalmologica.

[21]  A Heijl,et al.  Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. , 1998, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[22]  H. Rootzén,et al.  A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[23]  European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition - Chapter 3: Treatment principles and optionsSupported by the EGS Foundation , 2017, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[24]  A. Alm,et al.  Glaucoma management in Sweden – results from a nationwide survey , 2013, Acta ophthalmologica.

[25]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[26]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  Perimetry--the information theoretical basis for its automation. , 1972, Vision research.

[27]  C. Johnson,et al.  Suprathreshold static perimetry in glaucoma and other optic nerve disease. , 1979, Ophthalmology.

[28]  M. C. Leske,et al.  Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[29]  A Heijl,et al.  COMPUTER TEST LOGICS FOR AUTOMATIC PERIMETRY , 1977, Acta ophthalmologica.

[30]  B. Gloor,et al.  Changes of glaucomatous field defects , 1980, International Ophthalmology.

[31]  C A Johnson,et al.  Suprathreshold static perimetry. Initial clinical trials with the Fieldmaster automated perimeter. , 1979, Archives of ophthalmology.

[32]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[33]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi-centre cross-sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma , 2013, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[34]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA (Swedish Interactive Test Algorithm), in normal subjects , 1998 .

[35]  R. Ritch,et al.  Visual field progression differences between normal-tension and exfoliative high-tension glaucoma. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[36]  A Heijl,et al.  Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. , 1983, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[37]  A Heijl,et al.  A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects. , 1981, Archives of ophthalmology.

[38]  J. Caprioli,et al.  Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses. , 2011, Archives of ophthalmology.

[39]  Sonne Lemke,et al.  Automated Perimetry and Visual Dysfunction in Blast-Related Traumatic Brain Injury. , 2016, Ophthalmology.

[40]  Teresa C. Chen,et al.  Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[41]  William J Feuer,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[42]  C. Johnson,et al.  Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. , 1988, Applied optics.

[43]  H. Rootzén,et al.  An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[44]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. , 1999, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[45]  H. Taylor,et al.  Fastpac visual field screening. , 1995, Ophthalmic epidemiology.

[46]  A Heijl,et al.  Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening , 1976, Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie.

[47]  J L Keltner,et al.  Quantitative office perimetry. , 1985, Ophthalmology.

[48]  J. Nordmann,et al.  [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma]. , 1998, Journal francais d'ophtalmologie.

[49]  A Heijl,et al.  SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. , 1998, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[50]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm: analysis of large-scale data from clinics. , 2015, JAMA ophthalmology.

[51]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  The United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial: design and methodology. , 2013, Ophthalmology.

[52]  London,et al.  European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition - Chapter 3: Treatment principles and options Supported by the EGS Foundation: Part 1: Foreword; Introduction; Glossary; Chapter 3 Treatment principles and options. , 2017, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[53]  R. Olson,et al.  Canadian Ophthalmological Society evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of glaucoma in the adult eye. , 2009, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.