ArticleOphthalmology2021
The Effect of Transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on Visual Field Performance.
Article in Ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structure-function correlates in anterior visual pathway lesions: a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Effective Dynamic Range and the Measurement Floor of SITA-Faster Visual Field Tests.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Proportion of Fast Progressors in the Central versus Global Visual Field Across Varying Glaucoma Severity Groups.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparing the Utility of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Ganglion Cell Inner Plexiform Layer OCT Changes to Detect Glaucoma Progression.Ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model to Set Target IOP for Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Prediction of repeatable glaucomatous visual field defects based on cluster characteristics.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The Usefulness of Inclusion of Visual Field Tests Using Multiple Testing Strategies in Perimetric Rate of Progression Analyses.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- The effects of transitioning from SITA-Standard to SITA-Fast or SITA-Faster on sensitivities below the measurement floor.AJO international · 2025Article
- Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparison of Humphrey 24-2 SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and SITA Faster Test Strategies in Patients with Glaucoma.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Detecting glaucoma worsening using optical coherence tomography derived visual field estimates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Detecting Visual Field Worsening From Optic Nerve Head and Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Thickness Measurements.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- A Practical Framework for the Integration of Structural Data Into Perimetric Examinations.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- A potential primary endpoint for clinical trials in glaucoma neuroprotection.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Opportunities for Improving Glaucoma Clinical Trials via Deep Learning-Based Identification of Patients with Low Visual Field Variability.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- The Frequency of Visual Field Testing in a US Nationwide Cohort of Individuals with Open-Angle Glaucoma.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Big data in visual field testing for glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byReply.2021
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the effect of transitioning from Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard to SITA Faster on visual field (VF) performance in glaucomatous eyes with a broad spectrum of disease severity undergoing longitudinal VF testing in a real-world clinical setting.
designRetrospective, longitudinal study.
participantsA total of 421 patients (766 eyes) with manifest or suspect glaucoma followed at a single institution.
methodsEach included eye received the following sequence of VF examinations during routine clinical care: (1) SITA Standard, (2) SITA Standard, and (3) SITA Faster (mean time between tests = 13.9 months). Intra-eye comparisons were made between the first 2 VFs (Standard-Standard sequence) and the last 2 VFs (Standard-Faster sequence). The primary dependent variable was the difference in mean deviation (MD) between the second and first VF of the sequence (ΔMD, calculated as MD
main outcome measuresThe difference in ΔMD between Standard-Standard and Standard-Faster sequence by mild, moderate, and advanced disease severity.
resultsIn eyes with mild or suspect glaucoma, there was no significant difference in ΔMD between Standard-Faster and Standard-Standard sequences (-0.23 decibels [dB]; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.60 to 0.15 dB). However, the Standard-Faster sequence was associated with a 0.87 dB (95% CI, 0.18-1.57 dB) improvement in ΔMD compared with the Standard-Standard sequence in eyes with moderate glaucoma and a 1.49 dB (95% CI, 0.79-2.19 dB) improvement in ΔMD in eyes with advanced glaucoma.
conclusionsConverting to SITA Faster in eyes that were previously followed with SITA Standard led to similar VF performance in mild glaucoma but resulted in higher MD values in moderate and advanced glaucoma. For patients with moderate or severe glaucoma, this may conceal disease progression when transitioning testing strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.