Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2022
Validation of the SITA faster strategy for the management of glaucoma.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Humphrey 24-2 SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and SITA Faster Test Strategies in Patients with Glaucoma.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Big data in visual field testing for glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Comparison of the Real-world Performance of Henson 9000 Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the SITA Faster strategy (SFR) in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
methodsThis randomized, controlled, cross-sectional study included 236 Visual fields (VFs) obtained from 59 subjects, grouped as controls, mild, moderate and severe glaucoma patients. All examinations were performed using the HFA-3 perimeter with the 24/2 program, adopting two strategies: the SITA Standard (SS) and SFR. Glaucoma severity was studied using continuous (mean defect -MD- and visual field index -VFI) and categorical (scoring systems from the AGIS and CIGTS studies) perimetric indices.
resultsThere were no differences in the reliability indices obtained with both strategies when controls were compared to glaucoma patients. SFR significantly reduced the VF duration, saving 68% and 59.1% in glaucoma patients (60.8% in mild, 62.9% in moderate and 48.7% in severe glaucoma: p = 0.0004). The test duration was correlated with glaucoma severity, especially for the SFR (Spearman rho = - 0.88, - 0.82, 0.87 and 0.85 for the VFI, MD, AGIS and CIGTS, respectively). Although both strategies were correlated, the SS showed a greater severity of the defect in glaucoma patients (SS vs SFR VFI = 94.5 vs. 95, MD = - 3.17 vs. - 2.81, AGIS = 6 vs. 5, CIGTS = 4.85 vs. 3.41: p = 0.001). There was strong agreement between strategies, although this was lower in advanced glaucoma.
conclusionsThe SFR strategy constitutes an adequate strategy to monitor glaucoma, especially in mild and moderate cases. Its speed allows more VFs to be assessed, as recommended in clinical practice guidelines.
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.