Characterization and Comparison of the 10-2 SITA-Standard and Fast AlgorithmsReport as inadecuate

Characterization and Comparison of the 10-2 SITA-Standard and Fast Algorithms - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

The Scientific World Journal - Volume 2012 2012, Article ID 821802, 4 pages -

Clinical StudyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin 73000, Israel

Received 14 October 2011; Accepted 26 December 2011

Academic Editor: Francisco J. Muñoz-Negrete

Copyright © 2012 Yaniv Barkana et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Purpose: To compare the 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast visual field programs in patients with glaucoma. Methods: We enrolled 26 patients with open angle glaucoma with involvement of at least one paracentral location on 24-2 SITA-standard field test. Each subject performed 10-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast tests. Within 2 months this sequence of tests was repeated. Results: SITA-fast was 30% shorter than SITA-standard vs minutes, . Mean MD was statistically significantly higher for SITA-standard compared with SITA-fast at first visit  dB, but not second visit. Inter-visit difference in MD or in number of depressed points was not significant for both programs. Bland-Altman analysis showed that clinically significant variations can exist in individual instances between the 2 programs and between repeat tests with the same program. Conclusions: The 10-2 SITA-fast algorithm is significantly shorter than SITA-standard. The two programs have similar long-term variability. Average same-visit between-program and same-program between-visit sensitivity results were similar for the study population, but clinically significant variability was observed for some individual test pairs. Group inter- and intra-program test results may be comparable, but in the management of the individual patient field change should be verified by repeat testing.

Author: Yaniv Barkana, Erez Bakshi, Yakov Goldich, Yair Morad, Audrey Kaplan, Isaac Avni, and David Zadok



Related documents