{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044420368364030335, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03358613217768147, 'mean_word_length': 4.648318042813456, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 8, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma.

PURPOSE
To determine the within-visit between-algorithm and the within-algorithm between-visit differences in sensitivity for the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, FASTPAC, and Full Threshold algorithms in stable primary open angle glaucoma.


METHODS
One designated eye from each of 29 patients (age 67.3 +/- 10.2 years; mean +/- SD) experienced in automated perimetry was examined with the four algorithms on each of three visits, using the Humphrey Field Analyzer 750 and Program 30-2.


RESULTS
The group mean Mean Sensitivity was 1.0 dB greater for SITA Standard than Full Threshold (P < 0.001), 0.7 dB greater for SITA Standard than FASTPAC (P < 0.001), 1.6 dB greater for SITA Fast than FASTPAC (P < 0.001), and 0.9 dB greater for SITA Fast than SITA Standard (P < 0.001). The higher pointwise sensitivity for SITA Fast compared to Full Threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA Standard increased with increase in defect depth. The examination duration for SITA Standard was 53% of that for Full Threshold and 50% shorter for SITA Fast compared to FASTPAC (P < 0.001), regardless of age (P = 0.932). The examination duration increased with increase in severity of field loss (P < 0.001), and this increase was proportionately greater for both SITA algorithms (P < 0.001), particularly SITA Fast. The Total and Pattern Deviation probability analyses of both SITA algorithms yielded a statistically greater defect than Full Threshold or FASTPAC (P < 0.001). The within-algorithm between-visit differences were similar between SITA Standard and Full Threshold and between SITA Fast and FASTPAC.


CONCLUSIONS
Both SITA algorithms produce a marginally higher differential light sensitivity compared to existing algorithms but with a statistically deeper defect and a marked reduction in examination duration.