Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and

J M Wild1, I E Pacey, S A Hancock

  • 1Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
|May 11, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

^{129}Xe-Rb Spin-Exchange Optical Pumping with High Photon Efficiency.

Physical review letters·2018
Same author

Non-invasive methods for estimating mPAP in COPD using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.

European radiology·2017
Same author

Functional Image-guided Radiotherapy Planning for Normal Lung Avoidance.

Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))·2016
Same author

Response to: 'CT assessment for pulmonary hypertension requires systematic assessment of cardiac, vascular and parenchymal signs' by Marloes et al.

Thorax·2015
Same author

CT features of pulmonary arterial hypertension and its major subtypes: a systematic CT evaluation of 292 patients from the ASPIRE Registry.

Thorax·2014
Same author

Lung ventilation volumetry with same-breath acquisition of hyperpolarized gas and proton MRI.

NMR in biomedicine·2014

The Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm (SITA) Standard and SITA Fast show higher perimetric sensitivity and reduced testing time compared to older methods. SITA also offers lower variability, improving the definition of normal visual fields.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Visual electrophysiology
  • Medical technology

Background:

  • Automated perimetry is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring visual field defects.
  • Existing algorithms like Full Threshold and FASTPAC have established protocols but varying efficiencies.
  • The Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm (SITA) Standard and SITA Fast were developed to potentially improve speed and accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare perimetric sensitivity between SITA Standard, SITA Fast, FASTPAC, and Full Threshold algorithms.
  • To assess between-subject and between-algorithm variations in normal visual field sensitivity.
  • To evaluate the impact of different algorithms on examination duration.

Main Methods:

  • Fifty normal subjects with prior automated perimetry experience participated.

Related Experiment Videos

  • A two-period crossover design was employed over two visits using the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) Program 30-2.
  • Algorithms tested included SITA Standard, SITA Fast, FASTPAC, and HFA Full Threshold (640 and 750).

    • Main Results:

    • SITA Standard and SITA Fast demonstrated higher group mean sensitivity compared to Full Threshold (0.8 dB and 1.3 dB higher, respectively).
    • SITA Fast showed higher sensitivity than SITA Standard (0.5 dB).
    • Pointwise sensitivity differences were similar across algorithms, but SITA exhibited lower between-subject variability and significantly reduced examination times.

    Conclusions:

    • SITA algorithms yield slightly higher mean sensitivity and substantially shorter testing durations than existing methods.
    • The reduced between-subject variability with SITA is expected to enhance the precision of defining normal visual field parameters.
    • SITA represents a more efficient and potentially more accurate approach to automated perimetry.