Sensitivity and Specificity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm and Standard Full Threshold Perimetry in Primary Open-angle Glaucoma
- PMID: 29560366
- PMCID: PMC5847307
Sensitivity and Specificity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm and Standard Full Threshold Perimetry in Primary Open-angle Glaucoma
Abstract
Perimetry is one of the mainstays in glaucoma diagnosis and treatment. Various strategies offer different accuracies in glaucoma testing. Our aim was to determine and compare the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Fast and Standard Full Threshold (SFT) strategies of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in identifying patients with visual field defect in glaucoma disease. This prospective observational case series study was conducted in a university-based eye hospital. A total of 37 eyes of 20 patients with glaucoma were evaluated using the central 30-2 program and both the SITA Fast and SFT strategies. Both strategies were performed for each strategy in each session and for four times in a 2-week period. Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test, analysis of variance, and chi-square test. The SITA Fast and SFT strategies had similar sensitivity of 93.3%. The specificity of SITA Fast and SFT strategies was 57.4% and 71.4% respectively. The mean duration of SFT tests was 14.6 minutes, and that of SITA Fast tests was 5.45 minutes (a statistically significant 62.5% reduction). In gray scale plots, visual field defect was less deep in SITA Fast than in SFT; however, more points had significant defect (p < 0.5% and p < 1%) in pattern deviation plots in SITA Fast than in SFT; these differences were not clinically significant. In conclusion, the SITA Fast strategy showed higher sensitivity for detection of glaucoma compared to the SFT strategy, yet with reduced specificity; however, the shorter test duration makes it a more acceptable choice in many clinical situations, especially for children, elderly, and those with musculoskeletal diseases.
Keywords: Humphrey Field Analyzer; Perimetry; Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma; SITA Fast strategy; Standard Full Threshold Strategy.
Conflict of interest statement
No funding or sponsorship was received for this study. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval for the version to be published. This study has been accepted on 30 December 2017.
Similar articles
-
Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.Ophthalmology. 2000 Jul;107(7):1303-8. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00140-8. Ophthalmology. 2000. PMID: 10889102
-
Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.Ophthalmology. 2002 Jun;109(6):1052-8. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01047-3. Ophthalmology. 2002. PMID: 12045043
-
Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Aug;43(8):2654-9. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002. PMID: 12147599
-
Visual field testing in glaucoma using the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA).Surv Ophthalmol. 2025 Jan-Feb;70(1):141-152. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2024.09.005. Epub 2024 Sep 29. Surv Ophthalmol. 2025. PMID: 39349186 Review.
-
Protein Biomarkers in Glaucoma: A Review.J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 18;10(22):5388. doi: 10.3390/jcm10225388. J Clin Med. 2021. PMID: 34830671 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Concordance of 24-h intraocular pressure curve in patients with untreated unilateral primary open-angle glaucoma.Exp Ther Med. 2018 Aug;16(2):1461-1469. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.6315. Epub 2018 Jun 15. Exp Ther Med. 2018. PMID: 30116395 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Heijl A. The Humphrey Field Analyzer, Construction and Concepts. In: Heijl A, Greve E, editors. Sixth International Visual Field Symposium. Boston: W1985; pp. 77–84.
-
- Haley M. The Field Analyzer Primer. 2nd ed. San Leandro, CA: Allergan Humphrey; 1986.
-
- Schulzer M. Errors in the diagnosis of visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(9):1589–94. discussion 95. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31133-x pmid: 8090461. - PubMed
-
- (AGIS) TAGIS. The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 1 Study design and methods and baseline characteristics of study patients. Contr Clin Trials. 1994;15(4):299–325. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(94)90046-9 . - PubMed
-
- Study AGI. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(8):1445–55. doi: 10.1016/ s0161-6420(94)31171-7. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources