English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose The aims of this paper were to examine focal and diffuse visual field loss in terms of threshold agreement between the widely used SITA Standard Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) threshold algorithm with the SPARK Precision algorithm (Oculus Twinfield 2). Methods A total of 39 treated glaucoma patients (34 primary open angle and 5 primary angle closure glaucoma) and 31 cataract patients without glaucoma were tested in succession with the Oculus Twinfield 2 (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) using the SPARK Precision algorithm and with the HFA 3 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) using the 30–2 SITA Standard algorithm. Results SPARK Precision required around half the testing time of SITA Standard. There was a good correlation between the MS of the two threshold algorithms but MD and PSD were significantly less severe with SPARK Precision in both glaucoma (focal field loss) and cataract (diffuse field loss) groups ( p  &lt; 0.001). There was poor agreement for all global indices (MS, MD and PSD) between the two algorithms and there was a significant proportional bias of MD in the glaucoma group and PSD in both glaucoma and cataract groups. The pointwise sensitivity analysis yielded higher threshold estimates in SPARK Precision than in SITA Standard in the nasal field. Classification of glaucoma severity using AGIS was significantly lower with SPARK Precision compared to SITA Standard ( p  &lt; 0.001). Conclusion SITA renders deeper defects than SPARK. Compared to the SITA Standard threshold algorithm, SPARK Precision cannot quantify early glaucomatous field loss. This may be due to the mathematical linear interpolation of threshold sensitivity or deeper scotomas due to the plateau effect caused by the reduced dynamic range of the Twinfield 2 perimeter. Although not of clinical significance in early glaucoma, the plateau effect may hinder the long-term follow-up of patients during disease progression.

Comparative quantification of focal and diffuse visual field loss by the SPARK Precision threshold algorithm and SITA