ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual field defects in dementia: A scoping review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic yield of Humphrey visual field 30-2 testing for neurological versus non-neurological visual disorders: A tertiary-care retrospective study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- 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
- Volumetric Analysis of Perimetry Tests to Guide Central Testing: The Functional Vulnerability Zone.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Predicting Variability and Reliability in Visual Field Testing: Short- and Long-Term Approaches.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Prediction of repeatable glaucomatous visual field defects based on cluster characteristics.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Frontloading visual field tests detect earlier mean deviation progression when applied to real-world-derived early-stage glaucoma data.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Gaze tracker parameters have little association with visual field metrics of intrasession frontloaded SITA-Faster 24-2 visual field results.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Consistency of Online Circular Contrast Perimetry Across Different Computer Monitors: A Cross-sectional Study.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two conventional reliability criteria (false positives [FPs] and seeding point errors [SPEs]) and the concurrent effect of low sensitivity points (≤19 dB) on intrasession SITA-Faster visual field (VF) result correlations.
methodsThere were 2320 intrasession SITA-Faster VF results from 1160 eyes of healthy, glaucoma suspects, and subjects with glaucoma that were separated into "both reliable" or "reliable-unreliable" pairs. VF results (mean deviation and pointwise sensitivity) were analyzed against the spectrum of FP rates and SPE, with and without censorship of sensitivity results ≤19 dB. Segmental linear regression was used to identify critical points where visual field results were significantly different between tests due to FP levels.
resultsThere was a significant, but small (0.09 dB per 1% exceeding 12%) increase in mean deviation, and an increase in the number of points showing a >3 dB sensitivity increase (0.25-0.28 locations per 1% exceeding 12%). SPEs were almost exclusively related to a decrease in sensitivity at the primary seeding points but did not result in significant differences in other indices. Censoring sensitivity results ≤19 dB significantly improved the correlation between reliable and unreliable results.
conclusionsCurrent criteria for judging an unreliable VF result (FP rate >15% and SPE) can lead to data being erroneously excluded, as many results do not show significant differences compared to those deemed "reliable." Censoring of sensitivity results ≤19 dB improves intrasession correlations in VF results. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: We provide guidelines for assessing the impact of FP, SPE, and low sensitivity results on VF interpretation.
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.