Abstract
Purpose To evaluate visual fields using Zippy Adaptive Thresholding Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast among patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals.
Methods We recruited 22 healthy participants and 55 patients with glaucoma from the ophthalmology clinics at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India. Inclusion criteria were age 35 to 85 years, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.3 logMAR or better. Glaucoma patients had characteristic glaucomatous optic disc damage. All participants were free from any other ocular pathology except from mild cataract. Participants performed ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast tests on a Henson 9000 perimeter and Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard and SITA Fast tests on a Humphrey Field Analyser. Tests were repeated within 90 days to evaluate the test-retest variability.
Results The mean difference in the mean deviation (MD) values of ZATA Standard and SITA Standard tests was 1.7 dB, and that in ZATA Fast and SITA Fast tests was 0.9 dB. The sensitivity values of ZATA and SITA tests differed by 3 dB. ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast were 30% and 6% faster than the corresponding SITA tests. Grayscale and probability maps varied slightly between the four tests but represented a similar visual field for most patients in the study.
Conclusions ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast are suitable for clinical practice. However, differences between ZATA and SITA tests suggest that they should not be used interchangeably when monitoring over time.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Intra Mural Fund of Manipal Academy of Higher Education: UTN SG1118005
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The institutional Ethics Committee of Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding Information: This study was funded by the Dr. TMA PAI Scholarship (PN) and Intramural grant, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (RSVe and SBG)
Commercial Relationship: None of the authors have any commercial interest
Disclosures: A part of this study was presented as poster in ARVO 2022
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
https://github.com/PinazNasim/Visual-field-evaluation-using-ZATA.git
