Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster

8Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Faster is the most recent and fastest testing algorithm for the evaluation of Humphrey visual fields (VF). However, existing evidence suggests that there are some differences in global measures of VF loss in eyes transitioning from SITA Standard to the newer SITA Faster. These differences may be relevant, especially in glaucoma, where VF changes over time influence clinical decisions around treatment. Furthermore, characterization of differences in localizable VF loss patterns between algorithms, rather than global summary measures, can be important for clinician interpretation when transitioning testing strategies. In this study, we determined the effect of transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on VF loss patterns in glaucomatous eyes undergoing longitudinal VF testing in a real-world clinical setting. Archetypal analysis was used to derive composition weights of 16 clinically relevant VF patterns (i.e., archetypes (AT)) from patient VFs. We found switching from SITA Standard to SITA Faster was associated with less preservation of VF loss (i.e., abnormal AT 2–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 14) relative to successive SITA Standard exams (P value < 0.01) and was associated with relatively greater preservation of AT 1, the normal VF (P value < 0.01). Eyes that transition from SITA Standard to SITA Faster in a real-world clinical setting have an increased likelihood of preserving patterns reflecting a normal VF and lower tendency to preserve patterns reflecting abnormal VF as compared to consecutive SITA Standard exams in the same eye.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Le, C. T., Fiksel, J., Ramulu, P., & Yohannan, J. (2022). Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11044-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free