Measurement precision in a series of visual fields acquired by the standard and fast versions of the swedish interactive thresholding algorithm analysis of large-scale data from clinics

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 74-80

  Saunders, Luke J ^a   Russell, Richard A ^a   Crabb, David P ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SWEDISH INTERACTIVE THRESHOLDING ALGORITHM; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL FIELD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; VISION DISORDERS;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84920972683     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.4237     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(10):5985-5990.
2. 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(8): 2654-2659.
3. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(2):417-421.
4. Henson DB, Emuh T. Monitoring vigilance during perimetry by using pupillography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(7):3540-3543.
5. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76(3):268-272.
6. Nordmann JP, Brion F, Hamard P, Mouton-Chopin D. Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma. J Fr Ophtalmol. 1998;21(8):549-554.
7. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(6):1152-1161.
8. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry: SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75(4):368-375.
9. Heijl A, Patella VM, Bengtsson B. Effective Perimetry. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec; 2012.
10. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test: description ofmethods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76 (4):431-437.
11. Pierre-Filho PdeT, Schimiti RB, de Vasconcellos JPC, Costa VP. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(3):345-350.
12. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AET, O'Neill EC, Crews SJ. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989;67(5): 537-545.
13. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(1):81-86.
14. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):19-22.
15. Russell RA, Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP. New insights into measurement variability in glaucomatous visual fields from computer modelling. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83595.
16. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing http://www.R-project.org/. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012.
17. Turpin A, McKendrick AM. What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3237-3245.
18. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(5):1400-1407.
19. Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. Intervals between visual field tests when monitoring the glaucomatous patient: wait-and-see approach. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(6):2770-2776.
20. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569-573.
21. Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Goren D, Mansberger SL, Demirel S. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(7):1359-1369.
22. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77(2):143-146.
23. Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Signal/noise analysis to compare tests for measuring visual field loss and its progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50 (10):4700-4708.
24. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(11): 1544-1549.
25. Ball K, Owsley C, Beard B. Clinical visual perimetry underestimates peripheral field problems in older adults. Clin Vis Sci. 1990;5(2): 113-125.
26. Chauhan BC, House PH. Intratest variability in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(1):79-83.
27. Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V, Hughes BA, Kim C, Lee D. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(7):1126-1130.
28. Pathak M, Demirel S, Gardiner SK. Nonlinear, multilevelmixed-effects approach for modeling longitudinal standard automated perimetry data in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(8): 5505-5513.
29. Azarbod P, Mock D, Bitrian E, et al. Validation of point-wise exponential regression to measure the decay rates of glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(9):5403-5409.
30. Caprioli J, Mock D, Bitrian E, et al. Amethod to measure and predict rates of regional visual field decay in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52(7):4765-4773.
31. Russell RA, Crabb DP. On alternativemethods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(13): 9539-9540.
32. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233(12):750-755.
33. Bryan SR, Vermeer KA, Eilers PHC, Lemij HG, Lesaffre EMEH. Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(10): 6694-6700.
34. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Motyka BM, Niziol LM, Mills RP, Lichter PR. Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(8):2755-2759.
35. European Glaucoma Society. European Glaucoma Society Guidelines: Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. Savona, Italy: Editrice Dogma S.R.L; 2008:117-153.