ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2021
Comparison of the SITA Faster-a new visual field strategy with SITA Fast strategy.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Comparison of Humphrey 24-2 SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and SITA Faster Test Strategies in Patients with Glaucoma.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Visual Field Tests: A Narrative Review of Different Perimetric Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare visual field defects using the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Fast strategy with SITA Faster strategy, a newly developed time-saving threshold visual field strategy.
methodsNinety-three participants (60 glaucoma patients and 33 normal controls) were enrolled. One eye from each participant was selected randomly for the study. SITA Fast and SITA Faster were performed using the 24-2 default mode for each test. The differences of visual field defects between the two strategies were compared using the test duration, false-positive response errors, mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI) and the numbers of depressed test points at the significant levels of
resultsMean test durations were 246.0±60.9s for SITA Fast, and 156.3±46.3s for SITA Faster (
conclusionSITA Faster, which saves considerable test time, has a great test quality comparing to SITA Fast, but may be not directly interchangeable.
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.