目的:首次在接受标准自动视野检查(SAP)的正常人中比较瑞典交互式阈值算法(SITA)标准(SS)和SITA更快(SFR)策略。
方法:随机化,比较,观察案例系列。
方法:74名视野检查初治健康个体。
方法:所有个体均采用SS和SFR策略,使用HumphreyFieldAnalyzerIII(850Zeiss型)进行SAP24-2测试。测试每个个体的一只眼睛。策略之间的测试顺序是随机的,并且在测试之间允许15分钟的间隔。
方法:比较了以下变量:测试时间,中央凹阈值,假阳性错误,不可靠测试的数量,平均偏差(MD),视野指数(VFI),模式标准偏差(PSD),青光眼半场试验(GHT),偏离P<5%的凹陷点数量,P<2%,P<1%,在总偏差概率图和模式偏差概率图上,P<0.5%。使用Anderson的异常视野标准比较了SS和SFR策略的特异性。
结果:与SS相比,SFR测试的时间缩短了60.4%(P<0.001),并且PSD明显降低(1.75±0.80分贝[dB]vs.2.15±1.25dB;P=0.016)。关于MD没有显着差异,VFI,中央凹阈值,GHT,以及P<5%时下降的点数,P<2%,P<1%,在SS和SFR之间的总偏差和模式偏差概率图上,P<0.5%。当所有的考试都被分析并且安德森的任何标准都被应用时,SFR的特异性为68%,SS的特异性为61%(P=0.250)。仅分析第一次或第二次检查时,SFR和SS观察到的特异性也相似(63%与64%和72%vs.58%,分别,P>0.05)。
结论:在未接受视野检查的个体中,SS和SFR具有相似的特异性。SFR没有增加总和模式偏差概率图中凹陷点的数量。眼科医生应该意识到,这两种策略都与未接受视野检查的个体中令人不安的高假阳性率有关。
背景:专利或商业公开可以在参考文献之后找到。
To compare the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard (SS) and SITA Faster (SFR) strategies in normal individuals undergoing standard automated perimetry (SAP) for the first time.
Randomized, comparative, observational case series.
Seventy-four perimetry-naive healthy individuals.
All individuals underwent SAP 24-2 testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer III (model 850 Zeiss) using the SS and SFR strategies. One eye of each individual was tested. Test order between strategies was randomized, and an interval of 15 minutes was allowed between the tests.
The following variables were compared: test time, foveal threshold, false-positive errors, number of unreliable tests, mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and number of depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Specificity of the SS and SFR strategies were compared using Anderson\'s criteria for abnormal visual fields.
The SFR tests were 60.4% shorter in time compared with SS (P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly lower PSD (1.75 ± 0.80 decibel [dB] vs. 2.15 ± 1.25 dB; P = 0.016). There were no significant differences regarding the MD, VFI, foveal threshold, GHT, and number of points depressed at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total deviation and pattern deviation probability maps between SS and SFR. When all exams were analyzed and any of Anderson\'s criteria was applied, the specificity was 68% with SFR and 61% with SS (P = 0.250). The specificities observed with SFR and SS when only the first or second exams were analyzed were also similar (63% vs. 64% and 72% vs. 58%, respectively, P > 0.05).
The SS and SFR were associated with similar specificities in perimetry-naive individuals. The SFR did not increase the number of depressed points in the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Ophthalmologists should be aware that both strategies are associated with disturbingly high false-positive rates in perimetry-naive individuals.
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.