ArticleScientific reports2022
Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Detecting glaucoma worsening using optical coherence tomography derived visual field estimates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between 24-2 visual field and widefield optical coherence tomography data across healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma eyes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Detecting Visual Field Worsening From Optic Nerve Head and Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Thickness Measurements.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma care: An updated review.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Big data in visual field testing for glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Faster is the most recent and fastest testing algorithm for the evaluation of Humphrey visual fields (VF). However, existing evidence suggests that there are some differences in global measures of VF loss in eyes transitioning from SITA Standard to the newer SITA Faster. These differences may be relevant, especially in glaucoma, where VF changes over time influence clinical decisions around treatment. Furthermore, characterization of differences in localizable VF loss patterns between algorithms, rather than global summary measures, can be important for clinician interpretation when transitioning testing strategies. In this study, we determined the effect of transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on VF loss patterns in glaucomatous eyes undergoing longitudinal VF testing in a real-world clinical setting. Archetypal analysis was used to derive composition weights of 16 clinically relevant VF patterns (i.e., archetypes (AT)) from patient VFs. We found switching from SITA Standard to SITA Faster was associated with less preservation of VF loss (i.e., abnormal AT 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14) relative to successive SITA Standard exams (P value < 0.01) and was associated with relatively greater preservation of AT 1, the normal VF (P value < 0.01). Eyes that transition from SITA Standard to SITA Faster in a real-world clinical setting have an increased likelihood of preserving patterns reflecting a normal VF and lower tendency to preserve patterns reflecting abnormal VF as compared to consecutive SITA Standard exams in the same eye.
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.