PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Paul Rhee

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Rhee.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the severity, size, and depth of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold (FT), Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) standard (SS), and SITA fast (SF) algorithms of the Humphrey perimeter. METHODS: A prospective observational case series of 77 patients with glaucoma performed FT, SS, and SF 30-2 white-on-white testing programs on the same day on 2 occasions for 1 month. The severity of defects was compared using the mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, and Hodapp-Anderson-Parrish severity scores. The sizes of defects were compared using the total number of abnormal points on the pattern deviation plot that fit standard criteria for glaucomatous visual field defects. The depths of the defects were compared using the sum of the threshold values for points identified in the pattern deviation plot as fitting criteria for glaucomatous defects. RESULTS: The mean deviations were slightly better using the SS (-9.6 +/- 7.1 dB) or the SF (-9.1 +/- 6.7 dB) algorithm compared with the FT algorithm (-10.3 +/- 7.1 dB) (P<.005). There were no significant differences in pattern standard deviations between SS (8.6 +/- 4.0, P =.08) and SF (8.1 +/- 3.6, P =.19) compared with FT (8.3 +/- 3.3), although the pattern standard deviation was higher in SS fields compared with SF fields (P<.001). Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study scores were slightly better when the SS (7.5 +/- 5.6) or SF (7.2 +/- 5.4) algorithm was used compared with the FT algorithm (8.6 +/- 5.4) (P<.001). The sizes of glaucomatous defects were slightly larger using the SS (20.9 +/- 10.7) algorithm compared with the FT algorithm (19.2 +/- 10.9) (P =.004) but not the SF algorithm (20.0 +/- 10.6) (P =.11). The depth of defects measured by the SS (220.4 +/- 108.0 dB) and SF (219.8 +/- 101.3 dB) algorithms was significantly shallower compared with that measured by the FT algorithm (152.3 +/- 79.1 dB) (P<.001). There were no significant differences in Hodapp-Anderson-Parrish severity scores among algorithms (P =.12). CONCLUSIONS: Glaucomatous defects are measured significantly shallower using the new SITA algorithms but are approximately the same size and severity compared with FT measurements. Care should be taken when using threshold values to compare glaucomatous defects in a patient when converting from FT to SITA algorithms.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects.

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of two new visual field algorithms in detecting glaucomatous visual field defects: (1) Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) standard and (2) SITA fast. DESIGN: Prospective observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety normal subjects and 82 glaucoma patients. TESTING: Central 30 degrees fields were performed with the Humphrey visual field analyzer 30-2 program (Humphrey Systems, Dublin, CA) using full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast algorithms on the same day for two or more sessions within a 1-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity in detecting glaucomatous visual field defects with SITA standard and SITA fast using full threshold testing as the reference standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity of SITA standard and SITA fast in detecting glaucomatous defects overall was 98% and 95%, respectively. In the subset of mild glaucomatous field defects (26 patients), sensitivity of SITA standard was 92% versus 85% with SITA fast. Sensitivity was 100% for both algorithms in moderate to severe glaucomatous defects. Specificity for glaucoma defects using SITA standard and SITA fast was 96% for both algorithms. SITA standard reduced test-taking time from full threshold by 52% in normal subjects and 47% in glaucoma patients (P < 0.001). SITA fast reduced test-taking time by 72% in normal subjects and 65% in glaucoma patients (P < 0.001). Mean deviation values were 0.4 dB and 0.8 dB better in SITA standard and SITA fast fields, respectively, in normal subjects (P < 0.001), and 0.7 dB and 1.2 dB in SITA standard and SITA fast fields, respectively, in glaucoma patients (P < 0.001) compared with full threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: The new algorithms for measuring visual fields, SITA standard and SITA fast, have excellent sensitivity and specificity for glaucomatous visual field loss with considerable savings in time.

Adult↗