Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Feb;198:154-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010. Epub 2018 Oct 16.

A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.

Author information

Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Ophthalmology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address:
Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, California, USA.
School of Optometry and Vision Science Program, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Tajimi Iwase Eye Clinic, Tajimi, Japan.
Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Tays Eye Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Ophthalmology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.



To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field-testing strategy-Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast-and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy.


Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast.


Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability.


Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P < .001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P = .007) and SITA Faster (P = .002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test-retest variability over the entire range of threshold values.


SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.

Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center