Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001 Apr;5(2):114-7.
doi: 10.1067/mpa.2001.113840.

SITA visual field testing in children

Affiliations

SITA visual field testing in children

S P Donahue et al. J AAPOS. 2001 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: The Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) is a new testing strategy for the Humphrey perimeter. The standard SITA algorithm shortens test time in adults without increasing variability, but its usefulness for detecting field defects in children has not been investigated.

Methods: We evaluated 92 standard SITA 24-2 visual fields of children, most of whom had various types of optic neuropathies (pediatric idiopathic intracranial hypertension, homonymous defects, bitemporal defects, papilledema from brain tumors), and compared them with 49 full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in similar patients. We evaluated outcome measures of foveal threshold, mean defect, pattern standard deviation, false-negative and false-positive rates, and test time. Five children (9 eyes) had both SITA and full threshold testing (FTT).

Results: The SITA decreased test time by over 50% compared with FTT (12.6 +/- 3.0 minutes vs 6.6 +/- 1.6 minutes [P <.00001]). When patients with field defects were eliminated, the pattern standard deviation was lower with SITA than FTT (P <.002), indicating lower intratest variability of SITA in subjects with normal fields. No detectable difference was observed in the other outcome measures. Subjective analysis of gray-scale fields in patients who underwent testing with the use of both strategies showed marked similarities.

Conclusions: SITA shortens test time significantly compared with FTT and does so without jeopardizing interpretability. SITA has less intratest variability than FTT and therefore should be better for detecting and following defects. Caution is advised when following a visual field defect unless the same strategy is used for each evaluation. Switching strategies in the absence of a stable field defect is not recommended.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources