Authors
Kiyoshi Kano, Hiroki Nomoto, Chota Matsumoto, Shunji Kusaka, Yasuaki Kuwayama
Published in
Japanese journal of ophthalmology. Jul 27, 2026. Epub Jul 27, 2026.
Abstract
To compare visual field test results between the AIZE-EX strategy of the imo perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)-standard in glaucoma patients.
Prospective cross-sectional study METHODS: This study included 52 eyes of 26 patients with glaucoma. Binocular testing with imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE-EX (78 test points) and HFA 30-2 SITA-Standard (76 test points) results obtained within 3 months were compared. Mean deviation (MD) and patter standard deviation (PSD) were recalculated from the 24-2 test points (54 points) and compared between devices. Agreement was assessed using cluster-robust t-test, Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing using two one-sided tests (TOST); margin ±1.5 dB).
MD was -7.89 ± 6.86 dB for AIZE-EX and -8.24 ± 7.13 dB for SITA-Standard (bias: +0.35 dB; 95% LoA: -4.04 to +4.73 dB; p = 0.342). PSD was 8.52 ± 4.15 and 8.20 ± 4.72 dB, respectively (bias: +0.32 dB; 95% LoA: -2.94 to +3.58 dB; p = 0.190). TOST confirmed equivalence for both MD (90% CI: -0.26 to +0.95 dB; p = 0.002) and PSD (90% CI: -0.09 to +0.72 dB; p < 0.001). Proportional bias was absent for MD (p = 0.405) but present for PSD (p = 0.012). Test time for both eyes was significantly shorter with AIZE-EX (7 min 39 s vs. 15 min 24 s; p < 0.001).
MD and PSD values were comparable between the AIZE-EX and SITA-Standard derived from 24-2 test points, demonstrating clinical equivalence. Test time was substantially shorter with the AIZE-EX despite a greater number of points, supporting its use in routine glaucoma follow-up.
PMID:
42507298
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 27 Jul 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 6
- Comments 0