Effect of eye testing order on automated perimetry results using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2

被引:11
|
作者
Barkana, Y
Gerber, Y
Mora, R
Liebmann, JM
Ritch, R
机构
[1] New York Eye & Ear Infirm, Dept Ophthalmol, New York, NY 10003 USA
[2] NYU Med Ctr, Dept Ophthalmol, New York, NY 10016 USA
[3] Manhattan Eye Ear & Throat Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, New York, NY 10021 USA
[4] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Cardiovasc Dis, Dept Ophthalmol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[5] New York Med Coll, Dept Ophthalmol, Valhalla, NY USA
关键词
D O I
10.1001/archopht.124.6.781
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate whether the order of eye testing affects the mean deviation (MD) or the test reliability of visual field testing using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard 24-2. Methods: Consecutive patients with manifest or suspect glaucoma with 2 prior sets of SITA standard 24-2 test results performed on the right eye first were enrolled. A subsequent test was performed on the left eye first. For each eye, the MD and the test reliability indexes ( >= 20%) were compared among the 3 successive examinations. Results: Forty-seven patients (29 women and 18 men; mean +/- SD age, 70.6 +/- 11.9 years) were enrolled. The MD +/- SD was -5.83 +/- 5.43 dB OD and -5.46 +/- 4.86 dB OS. There was no statistically significant difference in the MD or the test reliability among the 3 test results for either eye. Fixation loss was responsible for the unreliable fields in almost all cases. Conclusions: Among this cohort of patients experienced with automated perimetry in a glaucoma subspecialty practice, changing the order of eye testing using the SITA standard 24-2 did not have a significant effect on the MD or the test reliability. Intereye fatigue may not be clinically significant with this algorithm. Fixation loss remains a problem with the use of this algorithm.
引用
收藏
页码:781 / 784
页数:4
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma
    Thulasidas, Mithun
    Patyal, Sagarika
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2020, 29 (11) : 1070 - 1076
  • [2] Comparison Between 24-2 SITA-Standard and 24-2 SITA-Fast Strategies in Standard Automated Perimetry
    Benenati, Brian
    Nassiri, Nariman
    Kim, Chaesik
    Swendris, Ronald
    Mas-Ramirez, Alma Michelle
    Tannir, Justin
    Goyal, Anju
    Juzych, Mark S.
    Hughes, Bret A.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2017, 58 (08)
  • [3] Comparison of size modulation and conventional standard automated perimetry with the 24-2 test protocol in glaucoma patients
    Hirasawa, Kazunori
    Shoji, Nobuyuki
    Kasahara, Masayuki
    Matsumura, Kazuhiro
    Shimizu, Kimiya
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2016, 6
  • [4] Comparison of size modulation and conventional standard automated perimetry with the 24-2 test protocol in glaucoma patients
    Kazunori Hirasawa
    Nobuyuki Shoji
    Masayuki Kasahara
    Kazuhiro Matsumura
    Kimiya Shimizu
    Scientific Reports, 6
  • [5] Does changing eye test order with 24-2 SITA standard result in a meaningful change in test results?
    Mora, R
    Barkana, Y
    Tello, C
    Liebmann, JM
    Ritch, R
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2005, 46
  • [6] Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in humphrey visual field testing
    Sekhar, GC
    Naduvilath, TJ
    Lakkai, M
    Jayakumar, AJ
    Pandi, GT
    Mandal, AK
    Honavar, SG
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2000, 107 (07) : 1303 - 1308
  • [7] Full-threshold versus Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time
    Schimiti, RB
    Avelino, RR
    Kara-José, N
    Costa, VP
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (11) : 2084 - 2092
  • [8] Comparison of Frequency Doubling Technology Full-Threshold and Swedish interactive technology algorithm Standard perimetry in children
    Moya, FJ
    Moya, AZ
    Stinnett, S
    Freedman, SF
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2003, 44 : U513 - U513
  • [9] Threshold visual field assessment using eye-tracking perimetry compared to standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
    Tatham, Andrew J.
    Murray, Ian
    Perperidis, Antonios
    Cameron, Lorraine
    McTrusty, Alice
    Brash, Harry
    Fleck, Brian
    Minns, Robert
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2017, 58 (08)
  • [10] Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in humphrey visual field testing - Discussion
    Douglas, GR
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2000, 107 (07) : 1308 - 1308