Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To 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.</p> Study design <p>Prospective cross-sectional study</p> Methods <p>This 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).</p> Results <p>MD 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>MD 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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of AIZE-EX and SITA-standard visual field measurements in patients with glaucoma

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月27日

查看全文
  • Kiyoshi Kano,
  • Hiroki Nomoto,
  • Chota Matsumoto,
  • Shunji Kusaka,
  • Yasuaki Kuwayama

摘要

Purpose

To 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 design

Prospective cross-sectional study

Methods

This 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).

Results

MD 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).

Conclusion

MD 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.