Biomedical subjects

Rui Barroso Schimiti

Publications and source records attributed to Rui Barroso Schimiti.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

[Full Threshold vs. SITA in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time].

PURPOSE: To compare the Full Threshold (FT) and SITA Standard (SS) strategies in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. METHODS: Thirty-one glaucomatous patients who had never undergone perimetry underwent automated perimetry (Humphrey, program 30-2) with both FT and SS on the same day, with an interval of at least 15 minutes. The order of the examination was randomized, and only one eye per patient was analyzed. Three analyses were performed: a) all the examinations, regardless of the order of application; b) only the first examinations; c) only the second examinations. In order to calculate the sensitivity of both strategies, the following criteria were used to define abnormality: glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation (PSD) <5%, or a cluster of 3 adjacent points with p<5% at the pattern deviation probability plot. RESULTS: When the results of all examinations were analyzed regardless of the order in which they were performed, the number of depressed points with p<0.5% in the pattern deviation probability map was significantly greater with SS (p=0.037), and the sensitivities were 87.1% for SS and 77.4% for FT (p=0.506). When only the first examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, but the sensitivity of SS (100%) was significantly greater than that obtained with FT (70.6%) (p=0.048). When only the second examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, and the sensitivities of SS (76.5%) and FT (85.7%) (p=0.664). CONCLUSION: SS may have a higher sensitivity than FT in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. However, this difference tends to disappear in subsequent examinations.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the screening modes of frequency-doubling technology (FDT), tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP), SITA Standard (SS) and SITA Fast (SF) in perimetrically inexperienced individuals. METHODS: One eye of 64 glaucoma patients and 53 normal subjects who had never undergone automated perimetry were tested with programs C-20-5 (FDT), G1 (TOP) and 24-2 (SS and SF). The gold standard for glaucoma was the presence of a typical glaucomatous optic disc appearance on stereoscopic examination (judged by a glaucoma expert), and intraocular pressure (IOP) > 21 mmHg. The test order among strategies was randomized for each subject. To define an abnormal visual field, we applied three criteria for SS and SF and two criteria for TOP and FDT, all of which have been previously described in the literature. Sensitivities and specificities among the different criteria were compared using the Cochran test. RESULTS: Frequency-doubling technology showed the shortest mean test duration, followed by TOP, SF and SS (p < 0.05). Sensitivity ranges were 87.5-89.1% for SS, 92.2-93.8% for SF, 87.5-89.1% for TOP, and 82.8-85.9% for FDT (p = 0.34). Specificity ranges were 73.6-83% for FDT, 56.6-62.3% for TOP, 60.4-69.8% for SF and 66.0-71.7% for SS. The specificity obtained with criterion 2 for FDT (based on the presence of two or more abnormal locations regardless of the severity of abnormal points) was higher than those measured with the other strategies (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: When testing individuals with no perimetric experience, moderate sensitivities and specificities should be expected, regardless of the strategy chosen.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time.

PURPOSE: To compare the full-threshold (FT) and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard (SS) strategies in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. DESIGN: Randomized, comparative, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty perimetrically naive normal individuals. METHODS: All individuals underwent computerized visual field examinations (30-2, Humphrey 750, Humphrey-Zeiss, Dublin, CA) with both FT and SS strategies. One eye of each individual was tested. Test order between strategies was randomized. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The following variables were compared: test time, foveal threshold, fixation losses, false-positive and false-negative errors, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, glaucoma hemifield test, and number of depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Initially, we compared the results of all FT and SS tests, regardless of the order in which they were applied. Next, patients undergoing SS as the first examination were compared with those undergoing FT as the first test. Finally, the SS and FT results obtained in the second test were compared. Anderson's criteria were applied to define abnormal examinations, allowing for the calculation of the specificity of the SS and FT strategies. RESULTS: When the results of all FT and SS tests were analyzed, the number of significantly depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, and P < 1% on the pattern deviation probability maps was higher with the SS strategy (P < 0.05); the specificity was 50% for SS and 72.5% for FT (P < 0.01). When only first examinations were compared, the number of significantly depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, and P < 1% on both the total and pattern deviation probability maps was higher with the SS strategy (P < 0.05); the specificity was 38.1% and 63.2% for the SS and FT strategies, respectively (P = 0.04). When only the second examinations were compared, there were no significant differences either between the number of depressed points or between the specificities of both strategies (73.7% for SS and 71.4% for FT) (P = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Normal individuals with no perimetric experience may present more significantly depressed points on the pattern deviation probability map when the SS strategy is used, reducing the test specificity in comparison with FT. These findings are probably due to a lower interindividual variability observed with SS. However, these differences disappeared in a second examination, suggesting that both strategies perform similarly in perimetrically experienced individuals.

Adolescent↗