These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: SITA visual field testing in children.
    Author: Donahue SP, Porter A.
    Journal: J AAPOS; 2001 Apr; 5(2):114-7. PubMed ID: 11304820.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) is a new testing strategy for the Humphrey perimeter. The standard SITA algorithm shortens test time in adults without increasing variability, but its usefulness for detecting field defects in children has not been investigated. METHODS: We evaluated 92 standard SITA 24-2 visual fields of children, most of whom had various types of optic neuropathies (pediatric idiopathic intracranial hypertension, homonymous defects, bitemporal defects, papilledema from brain tumors), and compared them with 49 full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in similar patients. We evaluated outcome measures of foveal threshold, mean defect, pattern standard deviation, false-negative and false-positive rates, and test time. Five children (9 eyes) had both SITA and full threshold testing (FTT). RESULTS: The SITA decreased test time by over 50% compared with FTT (12.6 +/- 3.0 minutes vs 6.6 +/- 1.6 minutes [P <.00001]). When patients with field defects were eliminated, the pattern standard deviation was lower with SITA than FTT (P <.002), indicating lower intratest variability of SITA in subjects with normal fields. No detectable difference was observed in the other outcome measures. Subjective analysis of gray-scale fields in patients who underwent testing with the use of both strategies showed marked similarities. CONCLUSIONS: SITA shortens test time significantly compared with FTT and does so without jeopardizing interpretability. SITA has less intratest variability than FTT and therefore should be better for detecting and following defects. Caution is advised when following a visual field defect unless the same strategy is used for each evaluation. Switching strategies in the absence of a stable field defect is not recommended.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]