目的:分析假阳性(FP)反应率与标准自动视野检查结果之间的关系。
方法:前瞻性多中心横断面研究。
方法:用瑞典交互式阈值算法(SITA)标准对126例明显或可疑青光眼患者进行了测试,SITAFast,和SITA在两次访问中的每一次都更快。我们计算了平均偏差(MD)的互访差异,视野指数(VFI),和统计学上显著的测试点的数量作为FP率的函数,也作为一般身高(GH)的函数。
结果:增加FP值与所有3种算法的较高MD值相关,但是影响很小,0.3dB至0.6dB,FP率提高10个百分点,VFI更小(0.6%-1.4%)。FP仅解释了一小部分的互访差异(r2值0.00-0.11)。FP对严重青光眼的影响较大,MD每10个百分点FP增加1.1dB至2.0dB,和r2值范围从0.04到0.33。显著下降的总偏差点的数量仅受到轻微影响,和模式偏差概率图通常不受影响。GH比FP更强烈地与周边结果相关。
结论:在3种不同的标准自动视野阈值算法中,FP率与视野测试结果仅显示弱关联,除了严重的青光眼。关于可接受FP范围的当前建议可能需要修订。GH或其他分析可能比FP速率更适合于识别经常按下响应按钮而没有感知刺激的患者的不可靠结果。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between rates of false positive (FP) responses and standard automated
perimetry results.
METHODS: Prospective multicenter cross-sectional study.
METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients with manifest or suspect glaucoma were tested with Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard, SITA Fast, and SITA Faster at each of 2 visits. We calculated intervisit differences in mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and number of statistically significant test points as a function of FP rates and also as a function of general height (GH).
RESULTS: Increasing FP values were associated with higher MD values for all 3 algorithms, but the effects were small, 0.3 dB to 0.6 dB, for an increase of 10 percentage points of FP rate, and for VFI even smaller (0.6%-1.4%). Only small parts of intervisit differences were explained by FP (r2 values 0.00-0.11). The effects of FP were larger in severe glaucoma, with MD increases of 1.1 dB to 2.0 dB per 10 percentage points of FP, and r2 values ranging from 0.04 to 0.33. The numbers of significantly depressed total deviation points were affected only slightly, and pattern deviation probability maps were generally unaffected. GH was much more strongly related to perimetric outcomes than FP.
CONCLUSIONS: Across 3 different standard automated
perimetry thresholding algorithms, FP rates showed only weak associations with visual field test results, except in severe glaucoma. Current recommendations regarding acceptable FP ranges may require revision. GH or other analyses may be better suited than FP rates for identifying unreliable results in patients who frequently press the response button without having perceived stimuli.