UNASSIGNED:要评估高级视觉分析仪(AVA;Elisar视觉技术),并比较Elisar标准算法(ESA)与HumphreyFieldAnalyzer的瑞典交互式阈值算法(SITA)的逐点阈值灵敏度和函数相关性(HFA;CarlZeissMeditec,公司)。
未经批准:预期,横截面,观察案例系列。
未经评估:一百六十只眼睛(85名对照参与者,75名青光眼患者)进行功能评估,15只眼睛用于测试-重测变异性(TRV),107只眼进行盲点试验(45只正常眼,连续招募62只青光眼)。每个评估选择一组单独的参与者。
UNASSIGNED:所有参与者都接受了ESA和SITA标准24-2测试,随机选择每个参与者的1只眼睛。组内相关系数(ICC),Bland-Altman,线性回归,平均偏差(MB),量化和评估比例偏倚分析.阈值测量,TRV,并将盲点定位精度与HFA进行了比较。
未经评估:逐点阈值灵敏度,部门平均敏感度(MS),平均偏差(MD),模式标准偏差(PSD),TRV,盲点位置,计算了平均测试时间,和数据是相关的。
UNASSIGNED:使用AVA进行现场测试所需的平均时间为7.08±1.55分钟,使用HFA进行现场测试所需的平均时间为6.26±0.54分钟(P=0.228)。健康参与者AVA和HFA之间的MS差异为-2.2±2.3dB(P<0.001),青光眼参与者为-2.6±3.5dB(P<0.001)。两种设备的逐点阈值的相关系数中等到强相关(r=0.68-0.89)。对于MS,总体ICC值为0.893(P<0.001),MB为2.48dB,一致界限(LOA)为10.90(范围,7.93至-2.97)。对于TRV,响应变异性随着灵敏度的增加而降低,随着偏心率的增加而增加。盲点定位准确,与测试方法的全球指标相关性良好。
UNASSIGNED:AVA有效地捕获视野中每个点的阈值。足够的功能相关性表明AVA(ESA)和HFA(SITA标准)之间具有实质性的等效性,暗示AVA可以准确评估视野。
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the Advanced Vision Analyzer (AVA; Elisar Vision Technology) and to compare pointwise threshold sensitivity and functional correlation of Elisar Standard Algorithm (ESA) with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc).
UNASSIGNED: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational case series.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred sixty eyes (85 control participants, 75 glaucoma patients) for functional assessment, 15 eyes for test-retest variability (TRV), 107 eyes for blind spot trial (45 normal eyes, 62 glaucoma eyes) were recruited consecutively. A separate group of participants was chosen for each assessment.
UNASSIGNED: All participants underwent ESA and SITA Standard 24-2 testing, and 1 eye of each participant was selected randomly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, mean bias (MB), and proportional bias analyses were quantified and assessed. Threshold measurements, TRV, and blind spot location accuracy were compared with those of the HFA.
UNASSIGNED: Pointwise threshold sensitivity, sectoral mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), TRV, blind spot location, average test time were computed, and data were correlated.
UNASSIGNED: The mean time required to perform a field test with the AVA was 7.08 ± 1.55 minutes and with HFA was 6.26 ± 0.54 minutes (P = 0.228). The MS difference between AVA and HFA was -2.2 ± 2.3 dB in healthy participants (P < 0.001) and -2.6 ± 3.5 dB in participants with glaucoma (P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients for pointwise threshold values were moderately to strongly correlated for both the devices (r = 0.68-0.89). For MS, the overall ICC value was 0.893 (P < 0.001) with MB of 2.48 dB and a limits of agreement (LOA) of 10.90 (range, 7.93 to -2.97). For TRV, response variability decreased with an increase in sensitivity and increased with eccentricity. Blind spot location was accurate, and global indices of testing methods correlated well.
UNASSIGNED: The AVA effectively captures threshold values for each point in the visual field. Adequate functional correlation suggests substantial equivalence between the AVA (ESA) and HFA (SITA Standard), implying that AVA may allow accurate assessment of visual field.