Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA

Open access
Bengtsson, Boel, Olsson, Jonny, Heijl, Anders, Rootzén, Holger·1997·Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to develop a new family of test algorithms for computerized static threshold perimetry which significantly reduces test time without any reduction of data quality. Methods: A comprehensive visual field model constructed from available knowledge of normal and glaucomatous visual fields is continuously updated during testing. The model produces threshold estimates and also estimates of the certainty to which the threshold is known at each point. Testing is interrupted at each test location at predetermined levels of threshold certainty. New time‐saving methods are employed for estimation of false answers, and test pacing is optimized. After completion of the test, all threshold estimates are re‐computed, taking into account the complete body of patient responses. Computer simulations were used to optimize the different parameters of the new algorithms, to evaluate the relative importance of those parameters, and to evaluate the performance of the algorithm as a whole in comparison with a standard algorithm. Results: Simulated test results obtained with this algorithm were slightly more accurate than those of the Humphrey Full Threshold test algorithm. The number of simulated stimuli presented was reduced by an average of 29% in normal fields and 26% in glaucomatous fields. Actual clinical test time should be further reduced, since the influence of the improved timing algorithm was not included in the simulations. Conclusions: We applied new methods which take available knowledge of visual field physiology and pathophysiology into account, and employ modern computer‐intensive mathematical methods for real time estimates of threshold values and threshold error estimates. In this way it was possible to design a family of testing algorithms which significantly reduced perimetric test time without any loss of quality in results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00392.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Bengtsson, B., Olsson, J., Heijl, A., & Rootzén, H.
Venue
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-08
Volume
75
Issue
4
Pages
368-375
ISSN
  • 1395-3907 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0420
OpenAlex
W2081437097
Cited by
431
References
7
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00392.x
The paper
Bengtsson, B., Olsson, J., Heijl, A., & Rootzén, H. (1997). A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00392.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.