advertisement
Abstract #22698 Published in IGR 11-1
Comparison of the new perimetric GATE strategy with conventional full-threshold and SITA standard strategies
Schiefer U; Pascual JP; Edmunds B; Feudner E; Hoffmann EM; Johnson CA; Lagrèze WA; Pfeiffer N; Sample PA; Staubach FInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2009; 50: 488-494
PURPOSE: A new, fast-threshold strategy, German Adaptive Thresholding Estimation (GATE/GATE-i), is compared to the full-threshold (FT) staircase and the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard strategies. GATE-i is performed in the initial examination and GATE refers to the results in subsequent examinations. METHODS: Sixty subjects were recruited for participation in the study: 40 with manifest glaucoma, 10 with suspected glaucoma, and 10 with ocular hypertension. The subjects were evaluated by each threshold strategy on two separate sessions within 14 days in a randomized block design. RESULTS: SITA standard, GATE-i, and GATE thresholds were 1.2, 0.6, and 0.0 dB higher than FT. The SITA standard tended to have lower thresholds than those of FT, GATE-i, and GATE for the more positive thresholds, and also in the five seed locations. For FT, GATE-i, GATE, and SITA Standard, the standard deviations of thresholds between sessions were, respectively, 3.9, 4.5, 4.2, and 3.1 dB, test-retest reliabilities (Spearman's rank correlations) were 0.84, 0.76, 0.79, and 0.71, test-retest agreements as measured by the 95% reference interval of differences were -7.69 to 7.69, -8.76 to 9.00, -8.40 to 8.56, and -7.01 to 7.44 dB, and examination durations were 9.0, 5.7, 4.7, and 5.6 minutes. The test duration for SITA Standard increased with increasing glaucomatous loss. CONCLUSIONS: The GATE algorithm achieves thresholds that are similar to those of FT and SITA Standard, with comparable accuracy, test-retest reliability, but with a shorter test duration than FT.
Dr. U. Schiefer, Centre for Ophthalmology, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. Ulrich.schiefer@med.uni-tuebingen.de
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)
