Perimetry Comparisons for Octopus G Top and Dynamic Programmes versus Humphrey 24-2 SITA Fast and SITA Standard Programmes
Fiona J. Rowe, Manijeh Wishart, Sarah Spencer
Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal · pp. 24–42 · Published 8 Nov 2013
10.9734/OR/2014/7073Abstract
Aims: Previous comparisons of Octopus and Humphrey threshold programmes have shown differences, particularly for depth of defects. Recent developments have altered the Octopus background illumination. Thus, we sought to determine the subsequent extent of differences in results from commonly used central static programmes using Octopus and Humphrey perimeters. Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Ophthalmology, Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, between June 2009 and July 2012. Methodology: We utilised Octopus G-TOP or G-dynamic programmes and Humphrey 24-2 SITA fast or standard programmes. Poor reliability was taken as errors >25%. Comparison was made for global indices (mean sensitivity, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation/loss variance), test duration from each perimeter using unpaired t tests, and Bland Altman plots for correlation of individual differences between perimeters. Clinical agreement for presence/absence of visual field loss was determined by independent assessment of results by two authors (kappa test). Results: Eighty patients (159 eyes) were recruited. 38 eyes were excluded due to poor reliability. 34 patients (55 eyes) underwent fast static visual field assessment: 17 males and 17 females with a mean age of 63 years (SD 14). 38 patients (64 eyes) underwent standard static visual field assessment: 18 males and 20 females with a mean age of 65 years (SD 13). For both full and fast perimetry, both perimeters showed good agreement for inter observer comparison (K=0.5-0.6). SITA standard perimetry showed a higher mean sensitivity value (+2.5dB±1.0) and SITA fast perimetry showed a higher mean sensitivity value (+3.4dB±1.1) than Octopus values. Bland-Altman analysis showed increasing variability with increasing severity of defect indicating a lack of correlation for moderate to severe visual field results. Conclusions: Visual field results were comparable for mild defects. Octopus perimetry continues to show greater defect size where there is more extensive visual field loss relating to the different strategies used by both perimeters.
References (13)
- 1 Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.
- 2 Sensitivity and specificity of the swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects1 1None of the authors has a commercial interest in Humphrey Systems. [DOI]
- 3 Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice [DOI]
- 4 Sensitivity and specificity of frequency‐doubling technology, tendency‐oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals [DOI]
- 5 Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients [DOI]
- 6 New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes [DOI]
- 7 Spatial Resolution of the Tendency-Oriented Perimetry Algorithm [DOI]
- 8 Visual Fields via the Visual Pathway [DOI]
- 9 The effects of weighting the ?mean defect? visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field [DOI]
- 10 Conversion Formulas between Automated-Perimetry Indexes as Measured by Two Different Types of Instrument [DOI]
- 11 Comparison of Diagnostic Ability between a Fast Strategy, Tendency-Oriented Perimetry, and the Standard Bracketing Strategy [DOI]
- 12 Comparison of Tendency-Oriented Perimetry and Dynamic Strategy in Octopus Perimetry as a Screening Tool in a Clinical Setting: A Prospective Study [DOI]
- 13 How to choose the right statistical test? [DOI]
Cited by 10
Ainhoa Colina-Jareno, R. Sánchez-Jean, Irene Serrano-García · Journal of Clinical Medicine · 2026
P. Narang, Amar Agarwal, M. Srinivasan · Ophthalmology Science · 2021
Gunasagar Das, S. Murthy, N. Suhasini · 2020
Kaitlyn W. Nolan, Michael S. Lee, Rohan A. Jalalizadeh · Journal of neuro-ophthalmology · 2018
Ş. S. Kucur, Raphael Sznitman · PLoS ONE · 2017
G. Holló · Journal of glaucoma · 2016
G. Holló · British Journal of Ophthalmology · 2016
Yashpal Sharma, Vinod Sharma, K. Sharma · Sudanese Journal of Ophthalmology · 2019
Showing 8 of 10 known citations — external sources report more than can currently be individually listed.
Related research
Article metrics
Real usage data collected on this platform.
63
Page views
0
PDF downloads
28
Outbound clicks
10
Citations
Views over time
Views by country
Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".
Traffic sources
Referring site, by host.
Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.