Comparison of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and full threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field loss

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 196-202

  Aoki, Yoko ^a   Takahashi, G ^a   Kitahara, K ^a  

^a JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Full threshold; Glaucomatous visual field defects; Swedish interactive threshold algorithm; Variability

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SWEDEN; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EID: 34250366265     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210701700208     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Johnson CA, Adams CW, Lewis RA. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl Opt 1988; 27: 1030-7.
2. Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR. Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 2966-74.
3. 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.
4. Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 9: 1847-54.
5. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997; 75: 368-75.
6. Olsson J, Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Rootzen H. An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997; 75: 181-3.
7. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76: 268-72.
8. 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: 1052-8.
9. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, ZEST and SITA-like strategies as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 4787-95.
10. Vingrys AJ, Pianta MJ. A new look at threshold estimation algorithms for automated static perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:588-95.
11. 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: 2654-9.
12. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76:165-9.
13. 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: 125-9.
14. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, Mcsoley J, Johnson CA, Anderson DR. Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:1136-41.
15. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Patella VM. Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 489-93.
16. Inazumi K, Tsuji A, Yamamoto T, Kitazawa Y. Evaluation of the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm, a new thresholding algorithm, of the Humphrey Field Analyzer in glaucoma patients. J Jpn Ophthalmol Soc 1998; 102: 667-72.
17. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma 2000; 9: 20-7.
18. 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.
19. 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: 1152-61.
20. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1998-2009.
21. Schimiti RB, Avelino RR, Kara-Jose N, Costa VP. Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individual undergoing automated perimetry for the fist time. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 2084-92.
22. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis: Mosby, 1999; 152-3.
23. Heijl A. Improved test algorithms for automated perimetry. In: Krieglstein GK, ed. Glaucoma Update, vol. 5. Heidelberg: Kaden Verlag, 1995; 168-73.
24. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Inter-point correlations of deviations of threshold values in normal and glaucomatous visual fields. In: Heijl A, ed. Perimetry Update. Proceedings of the 8th International Perimetric Society Meeting 1988. Amsterdam: Kugler & Ghedini, 1989; 177-83.