ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Nomograms for Converting Perimetric Sensitivity From Full Threshold and SITA Fast to SITA Standard in Patients With Glaucoma and Healthy Subjects.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Usefulness of Inclusion of Visual Field Tests Using Multiple Testing Strategies in Perimetric Rate of Progression Analyses.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Nomogram for Prediction of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Type 2 Diabetes Population in Xinjiang, China.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop nomograms for converting Full Threshold (FT) and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Fast (SF) tests to SITA Standard (SS) tests with the Humphrey Field Analyzer in patients with glaucoma and healthy subjects. Methods: One eye each of 49 patients with glaucoma and 50 healthy subjects was tested in 4 and 2 sessions (each containing the 3 strategies), respectively, over 4 weeks. The difference between pointwise Best Available Estimate (BAE; mean of all FT tests) and SS sensitivity at each session was used to derive four nomograms. Nomogram accuracy was assessed by: (1) comparing the converted FT to actual SS sensitivity (omitting the test session used to derive the nomogram) and (2) comparing the distribution of the differences between the converted and actual SS sensitivity to the actual SS test-retest differences. The process was repeated for SF and healthy subjects. Results: In patients with glaucoma, 39.85% and 59.69% of the conversion differences from FT were within 1 dB and 2 dB of the mean, respectively. The respective figures for SF were 45.69% and 65.04%, and in healthy subjects, they were 54.34% and 76.48% for FT and 61.17% and 82.66% for SF. The difference in the mean conversion and test-retest differences was <0.5 dB for all comparisons, with an overlap in distributions ranging from 78.75% to 85.24. There was no association between conversion differences and BAE for either FT or SF in either subject group. Conclusions: Nomograms to convert FT and SF tests to SS tests yield accuracies that are negligibly different from test-retest differences with SS. Translational Relevance: Nomograms allow direct comparisons between different perimetric strategies for a more comprehensive assessment of visual field change.
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.