Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm
To evaluate the effects of false-positive (FP) response errors on mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and test duration in the Humphrey Field Analyzer's (HFA II) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 2006-10, Vol.47 (10), p.4632-4637 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 4637 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 4632 |
container_title | Investigative ophthalmology & visual science |
container_volume | 47 |
creator | Newkirk, Michelle R Gardiner, Stuart K Demirel, Shaban Johnson, Chris A |
description | To evaluate the effects of false-positive (FP) response errors on mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and test duration in the Humphrey Field Analyzer's (HFA II) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA).
Five individuals with glaucoma (ages 52, 63, 69, 77, and 78 years) and five individuals with normal, healthy eyes (ages 25, 34, 43, 45, and 52 years), participated in the study. Each subject was experienced in automated perimetry and performed multiple, monocular baseline SITA-standard (SITA-S) 24-2 visual field tests. In addition, normal subjects completed SITA-S 24-2 field examinations in which known frequencies of FP error were introduced (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or 33% frequency). Likewise, the subjects with glaucoma completed visual field examinations with 0%, 20%, and 33% error introduced during the test.
Reported FP errors were significantly lower than the introduced frequency of error. The SITA algorithm more accurately identified FP errors when the MD and PSD diverged from normal. Test duration increased as introduced error frequencies increased. The Statpac single-field analyses indicated that two thirds of the tests with introduced errors produced a "low-patient-reliability" determination.
HFA II SITA-S underestimates patients' FP errors, particularly among normal patients. High FP error frequencies can have adverse effects on MD and PSD, leading clinicians and researchers to an inaccurate determination of the amount and severity of visual field loss. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1167/iovs.05-1598 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68895500</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68895500</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-c1df4fa21a8912090298e4a83164c90c78c8eb14efaeb7c826443a33ea7fa3663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0M9v0zAUB3ALgVjpuHFGvsAuZPOLf8Q5RhNllSYxiXG2XPdlMXKaYqeLyl8_R63YyXrWR1_7fQn5BOwaQFU3fnhO10wWIGv9hixAyrKQleZvyYKBUAUTTFyQDyn9YawEKNl7cgEVY1woWBDXpIQp9bgb6dDSlQ0J6cOQ_OifMdHJjx0dO6R3h37fRTzSlcewpc3OhuM_jHS9pg8YfY9jHv7rX-vHhjbhaYj5pr8k79o59-P5XJLfq--Pt3fF_c8f69vmvnBcwlg42LaitSVYXedv1qysNQqrOSjhauYq7TRuQGBrcVM5XSohuOUcbdVarhRfkq-n3H0c_h4wjab3yWEIdofDIRmldS1l3nxJvp2gi0NKEVuzzyvYeDTAzFyqmUs1TJq51Mw_n3MPmx63r_jcYgZfzsAmZ0Mb7c759Oo0SCGEzO7q5Dr_1E0-okm9DSHHgpmmSVTz-0Lxkr8ApJKNGw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68895500</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Newkirk, Michelle R ; Gardiner, Stuart K ; Demirel, Shaban ; Johnson, Chris A</creator><creatorcontrib>Newkirk, Michelle R ; Gardiner, Stuart K ; Demirel, Shaban ; Johnson, Chris A</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate the effects of false-positive (FP) response errors on mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and test duration in the Humphrey Field Analyzer's (HFA II) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA).
Five individuals with glaucoma (ages 52, 63, 69, 77, and 78 years) and five individuals with normal, healthy eyes (ages 25, 34, 43, 45, and 52 years), participated in the study. Each subject was experienced in automated perimetry and performed multiple, monocular baseline SITA-standard (SITA-S) 24-2 visual field tests. In addition, normal subjects completed SITA-S 24-2 field examinations in which known frequencies of FP error were introduced (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or 33% frequency). Likewise, the subjects with glaucoma completed visual field examinations with 0%, 20%, and 33% error introduced during the test.
Reported FP errors were significantly lower than the introduced frequency of error. The SITA algorithm more accurately identified FP errors when the MD and PSD diverged from normal. Test duration increased as introduced error frequencies increased. The Statpac single-field analyses indicated that two thirds of the tests with introduced errors produced a "low-patient-reliability" determination.
HFA II SITA-S underestimates patients' FP errors, particularly among normal patients. High FP error frequencies can have adverse effects on MD and PSD, leading clinicians and researchers to an inaccurate determination of the amount and severity of visual field loss.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-0404</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1552-5783</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-5783</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-1598</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17003461</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IOVSDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Rockville, MD: ARVO</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Algorithms ; Biological and medical sciences ; Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision ; False Positive Reactions ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Glaucoma - diagnosis ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Reproducibility of Results ; Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs ; Vision Disorders - diagnosis ; Visual Field Tests - standards ; Visual Fields</subject><ispartof>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2006-10, Vol.47 (10), p.4632-4637</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-c1df4fa21a8912090298e4a83164c90c78c8eb14efaeb7c826443a33ea7fa3663</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18154445$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003461$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Newkirk, Michelle R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gardiner, Stuart K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirel, Shaban</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Chris A</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm</title><title>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science</title><addtitle>Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci</addtitle><description>To evaluate the effects of false-positive (FP) response errors on mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and test duration in the Humphrey Field Analyzer's (HFA II) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA).
Five individuals with glaucoma (ages 52, 63, 69, 77, and 78 years) and five individuals with normal, healthy eyes (ages 25, 34, 43, 45, and 52 years), participated in the study. Each subject was experienced in automated perimetry and performed multiple, monocular baseline SITA-standard (SITA-S) 24-2 visual field tests. In addition, normal subjects completed SITA-S 24-2 field examinations in which known frequencies of FP error were introduced (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or 33% frequency). Likewise, the subjects with glaucoma completed visual field examinations with 0%, 20%, and 33% error introduced during the test.
Reported FP errors were significantly lower than the introduced frequency of error. The SITA algorithm more accurately identified FP errors when the MD and PSD diverged from normal. Test duration increased as introduced error frequencies increased. The Statpac single-field analyses indicated that two thirds of the tests with introduced errors produced a "low-patient-reliability" determination.
HFA II SITA-S underestimates patients' FP errors, particularly among normal patients. High FP error frequencies can have adverse effects on MD and PSD, leading clinicians and researchers to an inaccurate determination of the amount and severity of visual field loss.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Glaucoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests - standards</subject><subject>Visual Fields</subject><issn>0146-0404</issn><issn>1552-5783</issn><issn>1552-5783</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0M9v0zAUB3ALgVjpuHFGvsAuZPOLf8Q5RhNllSYxiXG2XPdlMXKaYqeLyl8_R63YyXrWR1_7fQn5BOwaQFU3fnhO10wWIGv9hixAyrKQleZvyYKBUAUTTFyQDyn9YawEKNl7cgEVY1woWBDXpIQp9bgb6dDSlQ0J6cOQ_OifMdHJjx0dO6R3h37fRTzSlcewpc3OhuM_jHS9pg8YfY9jHv7rX-vHhjbhaYj5pr8k79o59-P5XJLfq--Pt3fF_c8f69vmvnBcwlg42LaitSVYXedv1qysNQqrOSjhauYq7TRuQGBrcVM5XSohuOUcbdVarhRfkq-n3H0c_h4wjab3yWEIdofDIRmldS1l3nxJvp2gi0NKEVuzzyvYeDTAzFyqmUs1TJq51Mw_n3MPmx63r_jcYgZfzsAmZ0Mb7c759Oo0SCGEzO7q5Dr_1E0-okm9DSHHgpmmSVTz-0Lxkr8ApJKNGw</recordid><startdate>20061001</startdate><enddate>20061001</enddate><creator>Newkirk, Michelle R</creator><creator>Gardiner, Stuart K</creator><creator>Demirel, Shaban</creator><creator>Johnson, Chris A</creator><general>ARVO</general><general>Association for Research in Vision and Ophtalmology</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061001</creationdate><title>Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm</title><author>Newkirk, Michelle R ; Gardiner, Stuart K ; Demirel, Shaban ; Johnson, Chris A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-c1df4fa21a8912090298e4a83164c90c78c8eb14efaeb7c826443a33ea7fa3663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Glaucoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests - standards</topic><topic>Visual Fields</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Newkirk, Michelle R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gardiner, Stuart K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirel, Shaban</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Chris A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Newkirk, Michelle R</au><au>Gardiner, Stuart K</au><au>Demirel, Shaban</au><au>Johnson, Chris A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm</atitle><jtitle>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science</jtitle><addtitle>Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci</addtitle><date>2006-10-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>4632</spage><epage>4637</epage><pages>4632-4637</pages><issn>0146-0404</issn><issn>1552-5783</issn><eissn>1552-5783</eissn><coden>IOVSDA</coden><abstract>To evaluate the effects of false-positive (FP) response errors on mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and test duration in the Humphrey Field Analyzer's (HFA II) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA).
Five individuals with glaucoma (ages 52, 63, 69, 77, and 78 years) and five individuals with normal, healthy eyes (ages 25, 34, 43, 45, and 52 years), participated in the study. Each subject was experienced in automated perimetry and performed multiple, monocular baseline SITA-standard (SITA-S) 24-2 visual field tests. In addition, normal subjects completed SITA-S 24-2 field examinations in which known frequencies of FP error were introduced (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or 33% frequency). Likewise, the subjects with glaucoma completed visual field examinations with 0%, 20%, and 33% error introduced during the test.
Reported FP errors were significantly lower than the introduced frequency of error. The SITA algorithm more accurately identified FP errors when the MD and PSD diverged from normal. Test duration increased as introduced error frequencies increased. The Statpac single-field analyses indicated that two thirds of the tests with introduced errors produced a "low-patient-reliability" determination.
HFA II SITA-S underestimates patients' FP errors, particularly among normal patients. High FP error frequencies can have adverse effects on MD and PSD, leading clinicians and researchers to an inaccurate determination of the amount and severity of visual field loss.</abstract><cop>Rockville, MD</cop><pub>ARVO</pub><pmid>17003461</pmid><doi>10.1167/iovs.05-1598</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0146-0404 |
ispartof | Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2006-10, Vol.47 (10), p.4632-4637 |
issn | 0146-0404 1552-5783 1552-5783 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68895500 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Algorithms Biological and medical sciences Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision False Positive Reactions Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Glaucoma - diagnosis Humans Middle Aged Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis Predictive Value of Tests Reproducibility of Results Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs Vision Disorders - diagnosis Visual Field Tests - standards Visual Fields |
title | Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T11%3A31%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20False%20Positives%20with%20the%20Humphrey%20Field%20Analyzer%20II%20Perimeter%20with%20the%20SITA%20Algorithm&rft.jtitle=Investigative%20ophthalmology%20&%20visual%20science&rft.au=Newkirk,%20Michelle%20R&rft.date=2006-10-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=4632&rft.epage=4637&rft.pages=4632-4637&rft.issn=0146-0404&rft.eissn=1552-5783&rft.coden=IOVSDA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1167/iovs.05-1598&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68895500%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68895500&rft_id=info:pmid/17003461&rfr_iscdi=true |