SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, VALIDITY OF SITA FAST STRATEGY COMPARED WITH STANDARD FULL THRESHOLD ALGORITHM IN HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

ABRISHAMI M.; SEDAGHAT M.R.; BAMDAD SH.

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY Year:2004 | Volume:16 | Issue:2 Page(s): 23-29

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

1,412

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, VALIDITY OF SITA FAST STRATEGY COMPARED WITH STANDARD FULL THRESHOLD ALGORITHM IN HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER

Author(s)

ABRISHAMI M. | SEDAGHAT M.R. | BAMDAD SH. | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

PERIMETRYQ4

STANDARD FULL THRESOLDQ4

SITA FASTQ3

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the sensitivity, specificity and validity of SITAfast (SiF) strategy with the standard full thershold (SFT) algorithm in the Humphrey field analyzer. Materials &Methods: As an observational case series, twenty glaucoma patients (37 eyes) who were referred to Emam Reza & Ghaem eye clinic, central field testing was performed with the central 30-2 program using SFT and SiF strategies. Both tests were carried out on four different days in a span of two weeks. Sensitivity, specificity, validity, time saved, and the extent of defect in SITA FAST strategies were compared with those of SFT. Results: The sensitivity of SFT & SiF was 93.3%. Specificity of SFT & SiF was 71.4% & 57.4% respectively. The validity of SFT & SiF was 89.2% & 86.5% respectively. The mean time in SFT, SiF were 14.6 min & 5.45 min, respectively. Defects in gray scale was shallower in SiF (significant at P<1%, P<0.5%) but defects in the pattern deviation plots tended to be more in SITA FAST strategy but there was no significant difference in statistics. Conclusion: SITA FAST strategy has good sensitivity and is significantly faster as compared with the SFT algorithm. Test time is much shorter so common use of SiF is suggested. In children, old age patients and patients who has difficulty in concentration, SiF is superior to SFT.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

ABRISHAMI, M., SEDAGHAT, M.R., & BAMDAD, SH.. (2004). SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, VALIDITY OF SITA FAST STRATEGY COMPARED WITH STANDARD FULL THRESHOLD ALGORITHM IN HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER. JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY, 16(2), 23-29. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/53059/en

Vancouver: Copy

ABRISHAMI M., SEDAGHAT M.R., BAMDAD SH.. SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, VALIDITY OF SITA FAST STRATEGY COMPARED WITH STANDARD FULL THRESHOLD ALGORITHM IN HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER. JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY[Internet]. 2004;16(2):23-29. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/53059/en

IEEE: Copy

M. ABRISHAMI, M.R. SEDAGHAT, and SH. BAMDAD, “SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, VALIDITY OF SITA FAST STRATEGY COMPARED WITH STANDARD FULL THRESHOLD ALGORITHM IN HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER,” JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 23–29, 2004, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/53059/en

Related Journal Papers