ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of AIZE-EX and SITA-standard visual field measurements in patients with glaucoma.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual field test results between the AIZE-EX strategy of the imo perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)-standard in glaucoma patients. STUDY
designProspective cross-sectional study
methodsThis study included 52 eyes of 26 patients with glaucoma. Binocular testing with imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE-EX (78 test points) and HFA 30-2 SITA-Standard (76 test points) results obtained within 3 months were compared. Mean deviation (MD) and patter standard deviation (PSD) were recalculated from the 24-2 test points (54 points) and compared between devices. Agreement was assessed using cluster-robust t-test, Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing using two one-sided tests (TOST); margin ±1.5 dB).
resultsMD was -7.89 ± 6.86 dB for AIZE-EX and -8.24 ± 7.13 dB for SITA-Standard (bias: +0.35 dB; 95% LoA: -4.04 to +4.73 dB; p = 0.342). PSD was 8.52 ± 4.15 and 8.20 ± 4.72 dB, respectively (bias: +0.32 dB; 95% LoA: -2.94 to +3.58 dB; p = 0.190). TOST confirmed equivalence for both MD (90% CI: -0.26 to +0.95 dB; p = 0.002) and PSD (90% CI: -0.09 to +0.72 dB; p < 0.001). Proportional bias was absent for MD (p = 0.405) but present for PSD (p = 0.012). Test time for both eyes was significantly shorter with AIZE-EX (7 min 39 s vs. 15 min 24 s; p < 0.001).
conclusionMD and PSD values were comparable between the AIZE-EX and SITA-Standard derived from 24-2 test points, demonstrating clinical equivalence. Test time was substantially shorter with the AIZE-EX despite a greater number of points, supporting its use in routine glaucoma follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42507298What 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.