Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2025
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using
Jeremy C K Tan1, Ashish Agar1, Michael Kalloniatis2
1Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Ophthalmology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Purpose:
The newly released Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Faster (SFR) has significantly shorter testing durations compared with older SITA algorithms, but its variability is uncertain. This study quantified and established threshold limits of test-retest variability across the 24-2 test grid using SFR.
Design:
Cross-sectional study with prospective longitudinal arm.
Participants:
1426 eyes of 787 patients with healthy, suspected glaucoma, or manifest glaucoma eyes from hospital- and university- eye clinics.
Methods:
Two SFR tests per eye at a baseline visit and at two follow-up visits.
Main Outcome Measures:
Pointwise variability measured by test-retest difference in pointwise sensitivity between tests one and two, mean global variability (test-retest variance) measured by average of pointwise variability for each participant, global sensitivity, and reliability indices of each eye.
Results:
Of the 1426 eyes, 540 eyes (37.9%) had a diagnosis of glaucoma, 753 eyes (52.8%) were suspected of having glaucoma, and the remaining 133 eyes (9.3%) were healthy. Of 74 152 pointwise sensitivities obtained, the mean test-retest difference was 2.17 ± 2.9 dB, whereas the mean test-retest variance for each participant was 2.17 ± 1.2 dB. Pointwise and global variability increased with worsening threshold sensitivity and (MD), respectively, and was greater for peripheral compared with central test locations. In the longitudinal cohort, no significant difference in mean test-retest variance was found across the 3 visits (mean variability, 2.10 dB vs. 2.16 dB vs. 2.16 dB at visits F0 vs. F1 vs. F2; P = 0.53, repeated-measures analysis of variance). Baseline MD (-0.19 dB; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.16 dB; P < 0.0001) and abnormally high sensitivity on glaucoma hemifield test (1.14 dB; 95% CI, 0.78-1.51 dB; P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with increased variability. Finally, test-retest MD showed minimal change around the recommended 15% false-positive cutoff threshold.
Conclusions:
The variability of SFR increases with worsening threshold sensitivity, is stable over time, and is greater for peripheral compared with central test locations. Worse baseline MD and abnormally high sensitivity are significant predictors of increased variability. A cutoff of 15% in false-positive results may be inappropriate as a threshold for judging test reliability in SFR.
Financial Disclosure(S):
The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
