ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Clinical Effective Dynamic Range and the Measurement Floor of SITA-Faster Visual Field Tests.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe the effective dynamic range (defined below) using the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Faster perimetry and the effects of reliability.
methodsNine thousand six hundred and seventy-two test-retest pairs of the 52 test locations of the 24-2 SITA-Faster visual field tests from 1468 eyes of 748 subjects were analysed. The outcome measures were the number of discernible clinical steps, breakpoints and the measurement floor. Effective dynamic range was first assessed using an established approach of smoothed Loess functions (Method 1) applied to test-retest sensitivity pairs. Method 1 was a geometric approach for estimating the outcome measures. Method 2 used the same Loess functions applied to the data in Bland-Altman form. In Method 3, Gaussian smoothing and multisegmental linear regression were applied to the standard deviation of test-retest pairs as a function of mean sensitivity. Analyses were performed on the total cohort, a false positive rate ≤15% subgroup and a false positive rate 0% subgroup.
resultsMethod 1 returned four clinical steps with intervals bounded by 37 dB, 27 dB and 20-21 dB (the measurement floor), similar across each reliability condition. Method 2 returned the same number of clinical steps, but with a lower measurement floor (18-19 dB). Method 3 led to one to two additional steps and a floor of 18-21 dB. In general, using a false positive rate of 0% resulted in a relatively lower measurement floor value and more breakpoints in comparison with higher false positive rate tolerances.
conclusionsUsing a conventional reliability criterion of false positive rate ≤15%, SITA-Faster has four to five meaningful clinical steps/intervals and a measurement floor of 18-21 dB, which is slightly higher than estimates from SITA-Standard (likely attributable to the higher sensitivity values and greater variability of SITA-Faster). Below this level, clinicians should consider other perimetric approaches, such as 10-2 and/or testing with a Goldmann size V stimulus.
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.