2002
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-002-0482-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients

Abstract: There was a high correlation between the HSF and TOP strategies for measurements of global indices. However, the TOP strategy tended to underestimate focal visual field loss compared with SITA Fast. The TOP strategy was faster than SITA Fast. The sensitivity and specificity of the two algorithms were similar. This study establishes the ability of these fast strategies to successfully assess visual fields in glaucoma patients with perimetric experience.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
23
1
12

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
23
1
12
Order By: Relevance
“…The examination starts at half of the corresponding normal threshold value, and is continued in decreasing steps based on age-corrected normal values in either direction 1 2. The result is a threshold sensitivity value for each location formed by the four closest neighbouring points, each of which belongs to a different grid 1 2 12 16. Threshold determination with the TOP strategy does not respect the cluster borders 2 16.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The examination starts at half of the corresponding normal threshold value, and is continued in decreasing steps based on age-corrected normal values in either direction 1 2. The result is a threshold sensitivity value for each location formed by the four closest neighbouring points, each of which belongs to a different grid 1 2 12 16. Threshold determination with the TOP strategy does not respect the cluster borders 2 16.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Poor reliability was deemed present with fixation losses and false positive and false negative responses of >25% [9]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The time saving was generally more pronounced in the control group, and less pronounced in the glaucoma group with advanced visual field loss. However, when compared to the fast strategies available on the market, like Dynamic, SITA, and TOP algorithms, the pulsed RAMP is still slower than their average test durations [6][7][8][9]19,20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%