Abstract
Purpose
The threshold estimation, learning effect, and between-algorithm differences of the Fast Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA Fast), of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), and the Continuous Light Increment Perimetry (CLIP) strategy of the Oculus Twinfield perimeter were evaluated in damaged visual fields.
Methods
Twenty-one glaucomatous patients with damaged visual fields (MD worse than −8 dB) underwent Oculus Full Threshold (FT), Humphrey FT, SITA Fast, and CLIP 30–2 perimetric examinations. All the tests were repeated in a second session at least 3 days later. The point-wise differences in absolute sensitivity and of the total deviation plot values between FT and fast algorithms, between fast algorithms and the learning effect were evaluated (Wilcoxon test and Bland-Altman analysis).
Results
The average point-wise sensitivity difference between SITA Fast and HFA FT strategy (0.84 dB) was significantly lower than that found between CLIP and Oculus FT strategy (1.71 dB). Between-algorithm point-wise differences of the total deviation plot values of the fast strategies were not significantly different. Learning effect for SITA Fast (0.67 dB) was higher than that found for CLIP (0.39 dB). Test time for SITA (367±71 sec) and CLIP (453±98 sec) were about 55% and 35%, respectively, shorter (pp<0.001) than those found with FT algorithms. The acceptance for fast algorithms and particularly for CLIP was significantly better.
Conclusions
The two fast strategies, even though using very different algorithms, showed good threshold estimation compared to FT strategies with a consistent time saving in damaged visual fields.