Search

Purpose: To compare two fast threshold strategies of visual field assessment: SITA-Fast (SF; Humphrey field analyser) and Elisar-Fast (EF; Advanced vision analyser) in patients with glaucoma., Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, of total 192 subjects, 138 subjects [150 eyes, 80 glaucoma subjects (91 eyes) and 58 healthy controls (59 eyes)] were analysed and included. Each subject underwent 24-2 EF and SF in randomized order with a minimum time interval of 1 hour between tests., Main Outcome Measures: Mean test-time, pointwise and sectoral sensitivity, significance of values of mean sensitivity (MS) and global indices [mean deviation (MD) & pattern standard deviation (PSD)] and their correlation., Results: The mean test-time was 2.59±0.25 and 3.38±0.28 minutes (P = 0.001) with SF and EF respectively. Correlation coefficient for pointwise threshold values correlated strongly for both the devices (range from 0.70 to 0.92). The Intra class correlation (ICC) value of ≥ 0.8 was observed across all sectors indicating good reliability. Bland-Altman plot denoted 95% of data for MS values within limit of Agreement (LOA). The ICC values for overall MS, MD and PSD were 0.916, 0.913 and 0.872 respectively indicating good reliability. High degree of correlation was observed for MD (r = 0.912, P=0.00) and PSD values (r=0.732, P=0.00). Comparison of values indicated a difference of 1.09 dB for MD and 0.06 dB for PSD between both strategies., Conclusions: High degree of correlation existed between the global indices and pointwise threshold values. The study documents the ability of EF to successfully assess visual field in patients with glaucoma., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate diagnostic precision and prove equivalence of 2 devices, Advanced vision analyzer (AVA, Elisar Vision Technology) and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA, Zeiss) for the detection of glaucoma on 10-2 program., Design: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational study., Participants: Threshold estimates of 1 eye each of 66 patients with glaucoma, 36 control participants, and 10 glaucoma suspects were analyzed on 10-2 test with AVA and HFA., Methods: Mean sensitivity (MS) values of 68 points and central 16 test points were calculated and compared. Intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland-Altman (BA) plots, linear regression of MS, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were computed to assess the 10-2 threshold estimate of the devices. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for MS and MD values, and the area under the curve (AUC) was compared with assessing diagnostic precision., Main Outcome Measures: Mean sensitivity values of 68 points and central 16 points, AUC for MS and MD values, ICC values, BA plots, and linear-regression analysis., Results: Bland-Altman plot showed significant correlation for MS, MD, and PSD values for both devices. For MS, the overall ICC value was 0.96 ( P < 0.001) with a mean bias of 0.0 dB and limits of agreement range of 7.59. The difference in MS values between both devices was -0.4760 ± 1.95 ( P > 0.05). The AUC for MS values for AVA was 0.89 and for HFA was 0.92 ( P  = 0.188); whereas it was similar at 0.88 for MD values ( P  = 0.799). Advanced vision analyzer and HFA identically discriminated between healthy and patients with glaucoma ( P < 0.001), although HFA denoted marginally greater ability ( P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Statistical results denote adequate equivalence between AVA and HFA because threshold estimates of AVA strongly correlate with HFA for 10-2 program., Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Ophthalmology.)