Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies

Purpose. To compare the results obtained with two threshold strategies of visual field assessment: Humphrey SITA Fast (SFA) (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and PTS 2000 Advanced Threshold (ADV) (Optopol Technology) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Methods. The study sample comprised of 53 health...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bartosz L. Sikorski, Adriana Laudencka
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7139649
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832567480998952960
author Bartosz L. Sikorski
Adriana Laudencka
author_facet Bartosz L. Sikorski
Adriana Laudencka
author_sort Bartosz L. Sikorski
collection DOAJ
description Purpose. To compare the results obtained with two threshold strategies of visual field assessment: Humphrey SITA Fast (SFA) (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and PTS 2000 Advanced Threshold (ADV) (Optopol Technology) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Methods. The study sample comprised of 53 healthy volunteers and 69 patients with glaucoma. One eye of each patient was examined with the SFA and ADV strategies. The quantitative comparisons of test duration and global indices were made using correlation coefficients. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were evaluated based on the GHT results and the adjusted Anderson–Patella (A&P) criteria. Results. The ADV test duration was shorter both in healthy subjects (by 5%) and patients with glaucoma (by 18%). The mean differences in MS values between the SFA and the ADV strategies were 1.06 ± 1.13 dB (MSSFA-MSADV) in healthy subjects and 1.00 ± 1.92 dB (MSSFA-MSADV) in patients with glaucoma. The MD index of ADV tests was lower than the SFA in the healthy (−0.74 ± 1.09 dB) (MSSFA-MSADV) and glaucoma group (−0.85 ± 2.19 dB) (MSSFA-MSADV). The mean differences in PSD values determined using both methods were −0.86 ± 0.67 dB (PSDSFA-PSDADV) and −0.53 ± 1.48 dB (PSDSFA-PSDADV) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma, respectively. Analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves built from MD and PSD indices show bigger area under curve in SFA than in ADV (0.983 vs.0.968 and 0.986 vs. 0.938, respectively). The GHT-based sensitivity and specificity for the ADV strategy were 92.75% and 77.36%, respectively, as compared to 92.75% and 90.57%, respectively, for the SFA strategy. Conclusions. Both SFA and ADV enable effective identification of glaucomatous defects within 5 minutes. The ADV strategy, however, is significantly faster. The correlation between the global indices of SFA and ADV is very high. Both strategies offer very high sensitivity when using both GHT and A&P criteria.
format Article
id doaj-art-d3ced2b894b04e3d9bf4ae55877af80f
institution Kabale University
issn 2090-004X
2090-0058
language English
publishDate 2020-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-d3ced2b894b04e3d9bf4ae55877af80f2025-02-03T01:01:23ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582020-01-01202010.1155/2020/71396497139649Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric StrategiesBartosz L. Sikorski0Adriana Laudencka1Department of Ophthalmology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 9 M. Sklodowskiej-Curie St., Bydgoszcz 85-309, PolandDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 9 M. Sklodowskiej-Curie St., Bydgoszcz 85-309, PolandPurpose. To compare the results obtained with two threshold strategies of visual field assessment: Humphrey SITA Fast (SFA) (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and PTS 2000 Advanced Threshold (ADV) (Optopol Technology) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Methods. The study sample comprised of 53 healthy volunteers and 69 patients with glaucoma. One eye of each patient was examined with the SFA and ADV strategies. The quantitative comparisons of test duration and global indices were made using correlation coefficients. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were evaluated based on the GHT results and the adjusted Anderson–Patella (A&P) criteria. Results. The ADV test duration was shorter both in healthy subjects (by 5%) and patients with glaucoma (by 18%). The mean differences in MS values between the SFA and the ADV strategies were 1.06 ± 1.13 dB (MSSFA-MSADV) in healthy subjects and 1.00 ± 1.92 dB (MSSFA-MSADV) in patients with glaucoma. The MD index of ADV tests was lower than the SFA in the healthy (−0.74 ± 1.09 dB) (MSSFA-MSADV) and glaucoma group (−0.85 ± 2.19 dB) (MSSFA-MSADV). The mean differences in PSD values determined using both methods were −0.86 ± 0.67 dB (PSDSFA-PSDADV) and −0.53 ± 1.48 dB (PSDSFA-PSDADV) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma, respectively. Analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves built from MD and PSD indices show bigger area under curve in SFA than in ADV (0.983 vs.0.968 and 0.986 vs. 0.938, respectively). The GHT-based sensitivity and specificity for the ADV strategy were 92.75% and 77.36%, respectively, as compared to 92.75% and 90.57%, respectively, for the SFA strategy. Conclusions. Both SFA and ADV enable effective identification of glaucomatous defects within 5 minutes. The ADV strategy, however, is significantly faster. The correlation between the global indices of SFA and ADV is very high. Both strategies offer very high sensitivity when using both GHT and A&P criteria.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7139649
spellingShingle Bartosz L. Sikorski
Adriana Laudencka
Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
Journal of Ophthalmology
title Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
title_full Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
title_fullStr Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
title_short Comparison of Advanced Threshold and SITA Fast Perimetric Strategies
title_sort comparison of advanced threshold and sita fast perimetric strategies
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7139649
work_keys_str_mv AT bartoszlsikorski comparisonofadvancedthresholdandsitafastperimetricstrategies
AT adrianalaudencka comparisonofadvancedthresholdandsitafastperimetricstrategies