Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: Full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 209-212

  Yenice, Ozlem ^a,b   Temel, A ^a  

^a MARMARA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Turkey)

^b Veterinary Faculty   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Full threshold; Learning effect; SITA

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FULL THRESHOLD TEST; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEARNING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SWEDISH INTERACTIVE THRESHOLD ALGORITHM; VISION TEST; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 18744369082     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210501500205     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Schulzer M. Errors in the diagnosis of visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. The Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1589-94.
2. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 653-62.
3. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 1187-94.
4. Johnson CA, Adams CW, Lewis RA. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl Opt 1988; 27: 1030-7.
5. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Time related variation in normal automated static perimetry. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 701-7.
6. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 268-80.
7. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold: short-and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 704-6.
8. Wilensky JT, Joondeph BC. Variation in visual field measurements with an automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1984; 97: 328-31.
9. Werner EB, Aadelson A, Krupin T. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 1988; 95: 764-7.
10. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 44-8.
11. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1983; 67: 512-6.
12. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, O'Neill EC, Crews SJ. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 1988; 95: 764-7.
13. Brenton RS, Phelps CD, Rojas P, Woolson RF. Interocular differences of the visual field in normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986; 27: 799-5.
14. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of e new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76: 268-72.
15. Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, et al. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1303-8.
16. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma 200; 9: 20-7.
17. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1998-9.
18. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Fever WJ, McSoley J, Johnson CA, Anderson DR. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1052-8.
19. Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE. Evaluation of FAST-PAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 949-54.
20. Mills RP, Barnebey HS, Migliazzo CV, Li Y. Does saving time using FASTPAC or suprathreshold testing reduce quality of visual fields? Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1596-603.
21. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and full threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999; 77: 143-6.
22. Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y. Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999; 237: 29-34.
23. Haas A, Flammer J, Schneider U. Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 199-3.
24. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105: 1544-9.