Abstract

Background

Numerous fast threshold strategies have been developed in perimetry which use maximum likelihood approaches to estimate the threshold. A recent approach to threshold estimation has been developed estimating the threshold from a limited number of test points which further reduces examination time. This strategy, SPARK, has not been compared to the SITA strategy. The aim of this study was to compare SPARK with SITA in a normal cohort to evaluate within and between strategy agreement in threshold estimates.

Methods

A total of 83 normal subjects each underwent two visual field examinations with SITA and SPARK on two separate occasions on a randomly selected eye. The eye examined and the order of strategy examined first was randomised but remained constant over the two perimetry visits.

Results

Visual field examination with SPARK Precision was on average 33% faster than SITA Standard. A positive correlation between group mean sensitivities of SITA Standard and SPARK Precision (rho = 0.713, p < 0.001) was found. In total, 95% of stimulus locations were located within the 95% limits of agreement and linear regression on the differences in sensitivities showed no statistically significant proportional bias (t = 1.713, p = 0.09). Pointwise analysis showed SITA Standard had significantly larger variability for individual stimulus locations examined over two visits when compared to SPARK (t = 9.175, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The clinical examination of SPARK yields a sensitivity profile similar to SITA but in a faster examination time. The lower threshold variability of SPARK may be as a result of data smoothing in the threshold estimation process.

中文翻译：

---

两种快速阈值策略之间的比较：正常受试者中的 SPARK 和 SITA。

摘要

背景

在视野测量中已经开发了许多快速阈值策略，它们使用最大似然方法来估计阈值。最近开发了一种阈值估计方法，从有限数量的测试点估计阈值，这进一步减少了检查时间。这种 SPARK 策略尚未与 SITA 策略进行比较。本研究的目的是在正常队列中比较 SPARK 与 SITA，以评估阈值估计中的策略一致性。

方法

共有 83 名正常受试者在随机选择的眼睛上分别在两个不同的场合接受了 SITA 和 SPARK 的两次视野检查。检查的眼睛和首先检查的策略顺序是随机的，但在两次视野检查中保持不变。

结果

使用 SPARK Precision 进行视野检查的速度平均比 SITA Standard 快 33%。发现 SITA Standard 的组平均灵敏度与 SPARK Precision 之间呈正相关（rho = 0.713，p < 0.001）。总的来说，95% 的刺激位置位于 95% 的一致性范围内，敏感性差异的线性回归显示没有统计上显着的比例偏差（t = 1.713，p = 0.09）。逐点分析显示，与 SPARK 相比，SITA Standard 在两次访问中检查的单个刺激位置的变异性显着更大（t = 9.175，p < 0.001）。

结论

SPARK 的临床检查产生类似于 SITA 的灵敏度曲线，但检查时间更快。SPARK 的较低阈值可变性可能是阈值估计过程中数据平滑的结果。