Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 46, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 2755-2759

  Musch, David C ^a,b   Gillespie, Brenda W ^b   Motyka, Bonnie M ^b   Niziol, Leslie M ^a   Mills, Richard P ^c   Lichter, Paul R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; VISION TEST; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL THRESHOLD; ALGORITHM; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 24644520654     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0006     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL, CIGTS Study Group. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:653-662.
2. Haley MJ, ed. The Field Analyzer Primer. 2nd ed. San Leandro, CA: Allergan Humphrey; 1986.
3. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
4. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Patella VM. Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:489-493.
5. 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;107:1303-1308.
6. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohson M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:20-27.
7. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, McSoley J, Johnson CA, Anderson DR. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1052-1058.
8. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects: Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:165-169.
9. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:268-272.
10. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1998-2009.
11. Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE, et al. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS): baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2613-2620.
12. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812-819.
13. Bowker AH. A test for symmetry in contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1948;43:572-574.
14. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Ver. 9. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 2002.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
16. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full Threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1152-1161.
17. 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.
18. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:125-129.
19. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:143-146.
20. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659.