advertisement
Abstract #20819 Published in IGR 10-1
Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields
Capris P; Autuori S; Capris E; Papadia MEuropean Journal of Ophthalmology 2008; 18: 182-190
PURPOSE. The threshold estimation, learning effect, and between-algorithm differences of the Fast Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA Fast), of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), and the Continuous Light Increment Perimetry (CLIP) strategy of the Oculus Twinfield perimeter were evaluated in damaged visual fields. METHODS. Twenty-one glaucomatous patients with damaged visual fields (MD worse than -8 dB) underwent Oculus Full Threshold (FT), Humphrey FT, SITA Fast, and CLIP 30-2 perimetric examinations. All the tests were repeated in a second session at least 3 days later. The point-wise differences in absolute sensitivity and of the total deviation plot values between FT and fast algorithms, between fast algorithms and the learning effect were evaluated (Wilcoxon test and Bland-Altman analysis). RESULTS. The average point-wise sensitivity difference between SITA Fast and HFA FT strategy (0.84 dB) was significantly lower than that found between CLIP and Oculus FT strategy (1.71 dB). Between-algorithm point-wise differences of the total deviation plot values of the fast strategies were not significantly different. Learning effect for SITA Fast (0.67 dB) was higher than that found for CLIP (0.39 dB). Test time for SITA (367±71 sec) and CLIP (453±98 sec) were about 55% and 35%, respectively, shorter (p<0.001) than those found with FT algorithms. The acceptance for fast algorithms and particularly for CLIP was significantly better. CONCLUSIONS. The two fast strategies, even though using very different algorithms, showed good threshold estimation compared to FT strategies with a consistent time saving in damaged visual fields.
Dr. P. Capris, Department of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics-Clinica Oculistica, Department of Health Science Section Biostatistics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
Classification:
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)