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: Faster algorithms to measure visual field using the variational Bayes linear regression model in glaucoma: comparison with SITA-Fast. Author: Hirasawa K, Murata H, Shimada S, Matsuno M, Shoji N, Asaoka R. Journal: Br J Ophthalmol; 2023 Jul; 107(7):946-952. PubMed ID: 35232725. Abstract: AIMS: To compare the visual field (VF) test results measured with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Fast (SITA-Fast) and newly developed variational Bayes linear regression visual field (VBLR-VF) Fast or VBLR-VF Fast+. METHOD: Of 65 patients with glaucoma, 31 eyes of 31 patients performed VBLR-VF Fast and SITA-Fast, and 34 eyes of 34 patients performed VBLR-VF Fast+ and SITA-Fast on the same day and iterated the same procedures within 6 months using the 24-2 test grid in the current prospective study. Global index (mean deviation and pattern SD), pointwise retinal sensitivity, test duration and reliability index (fixation loss, false positive and false negative) were compared between SITA-Fast and VBLR-VF Fast or VBLR-VF Fast+. RESULTS: Global indices were not significantly different between SITA-Fast and VBLR-VF Fast or VBLR-VF Fast+. There was no significant difference in the pointwise retinal sensitivity between the SITA-Fast and VBLR-VF Fast algorithms at the first visit, while the VBLR-VF Fast algorithm was approximately 1 dB higher compared to the SITA-Fast algorithm at the second visit. Test duration was reduced by approximately 30 s (10%) with VBLR-VF Fast and by approximately 80 s (30%) with VBLR-VF Fast+ compared with to SITA-Fast (p<0.05). Most cases showed good reliability index values; however, a marginal but significant difference was observed between the VBLR-VF and SITA-Fast algorithms. CONCLUSION: Both VBLR-VF Fast and VBLR-VF Fast+ considerably reduced the test durations. Although there was a marginal difference in the pointwise retinal sensitivities, global indices were almost interchangeable between the VBLR-VF Fast and SITA-Fast.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]