Oculus–Spark Perimetry Compared with 3 Procedures of Glaucoma Morphologic Analysis (GDx, HRT, and OCT)

Rosa, Manuel González de la; González-Hernández, Marta; Sánchez-García, M.; Vega, Ricardo Rodríguez de la; Díaz-Alemán, Tinguaro; Ríos, Alicia

doi:10.5301/ejo.5000233

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the first phase, the 66 threshold values corresponding to the 66 test points are estimated by directly examining only six points, one in each functional region. 15 Thresholds for all other locations are determined by interpolation, but ultimately each of the 66 points is assessed at least once. In the following three phases, the threshold values of the 66-point grid get refined by testing 21 points (per phase) of the six regions (see Figure 1) and subsequent adjusting of neighbouring points through further interpolation.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 By averaging the thresholds, a reduction in threshold fluctuation of approximately 40% has been reported in patients in the early stages of glaucoma 13 and test durations of less than 3 min have been achieved. 14 The initial phase of the SPARK Precision algorithm (also referred to as SPARK training) can be completed in less than 40 s 15 and SPARK Precision has exhibited good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in glaucoma patients even when utilising the first phase results only. 15 Moreover, the agreement of SPARK Precision with morphologic indices 15 enabled its threshold sensitivity to be used to predict the thickness of retinal nerve fibre layer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 The initial phase of the SPARK Precision algorithm (also referred to as SPARK training) can be completed in less than 40 s 15 and SPARK Precision has exhibited good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in glaucoma patients even when utilising the first phase results only. 15 Moreover, the agreement of SPARK Precision with morphologic indices 15 enabled its threshold sensitivity to be used to predict the thickness of retinal nerve fibre layer. 16 The objective of this study was to evaluate the mean sensitivity (MS) and pointwise analysis of threshold values of SPARK Precision in comparison with the Humphrey Field Analyser in a normal population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison between two fast threshold strategies: SPARK and SITA in normal subjects

Foo

Cubbidge

Heitmar

2020

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Numerous fast threshold strategies have been developed in perimetry which use maximum likelihood approaches to estimate the threshold. A recent approach to threshold estimation has been developed estimating the threshold from a limited number of test points which further reduces examination time. This strategy, SPARK, has not been compared to the SITA strategy. The aim of this study was to compare SPARK with SITA in a normal cohort to evaluate within and between strategy agreement in threshold estimates. Methods A total of 83 normal subjects each underwent two visual field examinations with SITA and SPARK on two separate occasions on a randomly selected eye. The eye examined and the order of strategy examined first was randomised but remained constant over the two perimetry visits. Results Visual field examination with SPARK Precision was on average 33% faster than SITA Standard. A positive correlation between group mean sensitivities of SITA Standard and SPARK Precision (rho = 0.713, p < 0.001) was found. In total, 95% of stimulus locations were located within the 95% limits of agreement and linear regression on the differences in sensitivities showed no statistically significant proportional bias (t = 1.713, p = 0.09). Pointwise analysis showed SITA Standard had significantly larger variability for individual stimulus locations examined over two visits when compared to SPARK (t = 9.175, p < 0.001). Conclusion The clinical examination of SPARK yields a sensitivity profile similar to SITA but in a faster examination time. The lower threshold variability of SPARK may be as a result of data smoothing in the threshold estimation process.

show abstract

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between two fast threshold strategies: SPARK and SITA in normal subjects

Foo

Cubbidge

Heitmar

2020

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, four perimetric examinations were performed on the same day, twice with the OCULUS Smartfield perimeter (OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) using SPARK strategy 24,25 and twice with the Humphrey Analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Irvine, CA, USA) using 24–2 SITA-Fast strategy, 26 after at least two previous examinations. SPARK examines 66 points and SITA 52 points.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New visual field indices of disharmony for early diagnosis of glaucoma, alone or associated with conventional parameters

Abreu-González¹,

González-Hernández

Pena-Betancor

et al. 2018

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These statistical relationships are derived from almost 100,000 VF examinations. 12,13 Overall, by adopting this different methodology, the strategy aims to provide a faster exam and mitigate fatigue-related issues. On the other hand, it is still to be better understood how this new approach would influence the final retinal sensitivity estimation in comparison to other more well-established VF tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Retinal Sensitivity Thresholds Obtained Through Easyfield and Humphrey Perimeters in Eyes with Glaucoma: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study</p>

Nazareth

Rocha

Scoralick

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare global retinal sensitivity thresholds obtained through the Easyfield perimeter (EF) and Humphrey visual field analyzer (HFA). Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Participants: Glaucomatous patients and glaucoma suspects enrolled between October 2018 and April 2019. Materials and Methods: All participants underwent EF (SPARK Precision) and HFA perimetry (SITA-Standard). After inclusion, demographic and ocular data were collected, including measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness obtained from spectraldomain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Global indices (mean deviation, MD; pattern standard deviation, PSD) values were compared between perimeters, and their correlation and agreement were evaluated. We used regression analysis to investigate structure-functional correlations between SD-OCT measurements and MD index of each perimeter. Results: We investigated 111 eyes from 69 patients. Mean MD (mean difference=1.49dB) and PSD values (mean difference=0.42dB) from the HFA were significantly larger than those from the EF perimeter (p<0.001). There were significant linear correlations between EF-MD and HFA-MD (r=0.56), and EF-PSD and HFA-PSD (r=0.38; p<0.001). We found significant non-linear associations between average RNFL thickness and MD values derived from both EF (R 2 =0.41) and HFA (R 2 =0.17) perimeters (p≤0.012). A difference <2dB between EF-MD and HFA-MD was found in 53% of the eyes, while 71% of them had a difference <1dB between EF-PSD and HFA-PSD. Conclusion: While we found a moderate correlation and a small mean sensitivity difference between test results, EF's correlation with structural measurements was at least comparable to that of the HFA. Our findings suggest that although these tests should not be used interchangeably, EF SPARK Precision could be used as an alternative for functional assessment in eyes with mild glaucoma.

show abstract

Oculus–Spark Perimetry Compared with 3 Procedures of Glaucoma Morphologic Analysis (GDx, HRT, and OCT)

Abstract: Spark perimetry appears to show useful sensitivity and specificity, even in the first phase, and good agreement with the morphology.

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison between two fast threshold strategies: SPARK and SITA in normal subjects

Comparison between two fast threshold strategies: SPARK and SITA in normal subjects

New visual field indices of disharmony for early diagnosis of glaucoma, alone or associated with conventional parameters

<p>Retinal Sensitivity Thresholds Obtained Through Easyfield and Humphrey Perimeters in Eyes with Glaucoma: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About