{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]],"date-time":"2026-07-23T13:04:21Z","timestamp":1784811861698,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":29,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]],"date-time":"2026-05-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1778457600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]],"date-time":"2026-05-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1778457600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100000925","name":"National Health and Medical Research Council","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","award":["1186915"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["1186915"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100000925","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To describe the effective dynamic range (defined below) using the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Faster perimetry and the effects of reliability.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Nine thousand six hundred and seventy-two test\u2013retest pairs of the 52 test locations of the 24-2 SITA-Faster visual field tests from 1468 eyes of 748 subjects were analysed. The outcome measures were the number of discernible clinical steps, breakpoints and the measurement floor. Effective dynamic range was first assessed using an established approach of smoothed Loess functions (Method 1) applied to test\u2013retest sensitivity pairs. Method 1 was a geometric approach for estimating the outcome measures. Method 2 used the same Loess functions applied to the data in Bland\u2013Altman form. In Method 3, Gaussian smoothing and multisegmental linear regression were applied to the standard deviation of test\u2013retest pairs as a function of mean sensitivity. Analyses were performed on the total cohort, a false positive rate \u226415% subgroup and a false positive rate 0% subgroup.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Method 1 returned four clinical steps with intervals bounded by 37\u2009dB, 27\u2009dB and 20\u201321\u2009dB (the measurement floor), similar across each reliability condition. Method 2 returned the same number of clinical steps, but with a lower measurement floor (18\u201319\u2009dB). Method 3 led to one to two additional steps and a floor of 18\u201321\u2009dB. In general, using a false positive rate of 0% resulted in a relatively lower measurement floor value and more breakpoints in comparison with higher false positive rate tolerances.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Using a conventional reliability criterion of false positive rate \u226415%, SITA-Faster has four to five meaningful clinical steps\/intervals and a measurement floor of 18\u201321\u2009dB, which is slightly higher than estimates from SITA-Standard (likely attributable to the higher sensitivity values and greater variability of SITA-Faster). Below this level, clinicians should consider other perimetric approaches, such as 10-2 and\/or testing with a Goldmann size V stimulus.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]],"date-time":"2026-05-11T05:54:55Z","timestamp":1778478895000},"page":"991-999","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Clinical Effective Dynamic Range and the Measurement Floor of SITA-Faster Visual Field Tests"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"46","author":[{"given":"Jack","family":"Phu","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Henrietta","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michael","family":"Kalloniatis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"103_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"101307.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.preteyeres.2024.101307","volume":"104","author":"J Phu","year":"2025","unstructured":"Phu J, Khuu SK, Nivison-Smith L, Kalloniatis M. Standard automated perimetry for glaucoma and diseases of the retina and visual pathways: current and future perspectives. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2025;104:101307. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.preteyeres.2024.101307.","journal-title":"Prog Retin Eye Res"},{"key":"103_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"313","DOI":"10.1111\/cxo.12551","volume":"100","author":"J Phu","year":"2017","unstructured":"Phu J, Khuu SK, Yapp M, Assaad N, Hennessy MP, Kalloniatis M. The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:313\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/cxo.12551.","journal-title":"Clin Exp Optom"},{"key":"103_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"25.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.8.5.25","volume":"8","author":"A Rabiolo","year":"2019","unstructured":"Rabiolo A, Morales E, Afifi AA, Yu F, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Quantification of visual field variability in glaucoma: implications for visual field prediction and modeling. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8:25. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.8.5.25.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"570","DOI":"10.1001\/archophthalmol.2010.71","volume":"128","author":"M Wall","year":"2010","unstructured":"Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Zamba G. The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:570\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/archophthalmol.2010.71.","journal-title":"Arch Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1359","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2014.01.020","volume":"121","author":"SK Gardiner","year":"2014","unstructured":"Gardiner SK, Swanson WH, Goren D, Mansberger SL, Demirel S. Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1359\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ophtha.2014.01.020.","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"key":"103_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1016\/j.survophthal.2024.09.005","volume":"70","author":"JCK Tan","year":"2025","unstructured":"Tan JCK, Yohannan J, Ramulu PY, Kalloniatis M, Crabb DP, Crowston J, et al. Visual field testing in glaucoma using the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA). Surv Ophthalmol. 2025;70:141\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.survophthal.2024.09.005.","journal-title":"Surv Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Bradley C, Pham A, Yohannan J. The effects of transitioning from SITA-Standard to SITA-Fast or SITA-Faster on sensitivities below the measurement floor. AJO Int. 2025;2:100116. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajoint.2025.100116.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajoint.2025.100116"},{"key":"103_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"251","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2019.08.013","volume":"208","author":"J Phu","year":"2019","unstructured":"Phu J, Khuu SK, Agar A, Kalloniatis M. Clinical evaluation of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Faster compared with Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Standard in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;208:251\u201364. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajo.2019.08.013.","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.10.13.21","volume":"10","author":"J Phu","year":"2021","unstructured":"Phu J, Kalloniatis M. The Frontloading Fields Study (FFS): detecting changes in mean deviation in glaucoma using multiple visual field tests per clinical visit. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021;10:21. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.10.13.21.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"180","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2021.06.026","volume":"233","author":"A Heijl","year":"2022","unstructured":"Heijl A, Patella VM, Flanagan JG, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, et al. False positive responses in standard automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;233:180\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajo.2021.06.026.","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.11.2.20","volume":"11","author":"J Phu","year":"2022","unstructured":"Phu J, Kalloniatis M. The Frontloading Fields Study: the impact of false positives and seeding point errors on visual field reliability when using SITA-Faster. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022;11:20. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.11.2.20.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"658","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2023.12.018","volume":"131","author":"JCK Tan","year":"2024","unstructured":"Tan JCK, Agar A, Kalloniatis M, Phu J. Quantification and predictors of visual field variability in healthy, glaucoma suspect, and glaucomatous eyes using SITA-Faster. Ophthalmology. 2024;131:658\u201366. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ophtha.2023.12.018.","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"key":"103_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"48","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2021.04.019","volume":"230","author":"J Phu","year":"2021","unstructured":"Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Viability of performing multiple 24-2 visual field examinations at the same clinical visit: the Frontloading Fields Study (FFS). Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;230:48\u201359. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajo.2021.04.019.","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"6.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.3.5.6","volume":"3","author":"WH Swanson","year":"2014","unstructured":"Swanson WH, Horner DG, Dul MW, Malinovsky VE. Choice of stimulus range and size can reduce test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual field defects. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2014;3:6. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.3.5.6.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5985","DOI":"10.1167\/iovs.12-10428","volume":"53","author":"RA Russell","year":"2012","unstructured":"Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5985\u201390. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/iovs.12-10428.","journal-title":"Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci"},{"key":"103_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Phu J, Wang H, Tan JCK, Kalloniatis M. Predicting variability and reliability in visual field testing: short- and long-term approaches. Ophthalmol Sci. 2026;6:101065. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.xops.2026.101065.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.xops.2026.101065"},{"key":"103_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajo.2018.10.010","volume":"198","author":"A Heijl","year":"2019","unstructured":"Heijl A, Patella VM, Chong LX, Iwase A, Leung CK, Tuulonen A, et al. A new SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: construction and a multicenter clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;198:154\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajo.2018.10.010.","journal-title":"Am J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"30.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.12.2.30","volume":"12","author":"SK Gardiner","year":"2023","unstructured":"Gardiner SK. Longitudinal signal-to-noise ratio of perimetry at different severities of glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023;12:30. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.12.2.30.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-022-11044-8","volume":"12","author":"CT Le","year":"2022","unstructured":"Le CT, Fiksel J, Ramulu P, Yohannan J. Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster. Sci Rep. 2022;12:7001. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-022-11044-8.","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"key":"103_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1417","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2021.03.032","volume":"128","author":"AT Pham","year":"2021","unstructured":"Pham AT, Ramulu PY, Boland MV, Yohannan J. The effect of transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on visual field performance. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:1417\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ophtha.2021.03.032.","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"key":"103_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5631","DOI":"10.1167\/iovs.16-20053","volume":"57","author":"SK Gardiner","year":"2016","unstructured":"Gardiner SK, Mansberger SL. Effect of restricting perimetry testing algorithms to reliable sensitivities on test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:5631\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/iovs.16-20053.","journal-title":"Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci"},{"key":"103_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"439","DOI":"10.1167\/iovs.17-22390","volume":"59","author":"M Wall","year":"2018","unstructured":"Wall M, Zamba GKD, Artes PH. The effective dynamic ranges for glaucomatous visual field progression with standard automated perimetry and stimulus sizes III and V. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59:439\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/iovs.17-22390.","journal-title":"Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci"},{"key":"103_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0127233.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0127233","volume":"10","author":"HL Rao","year":"2015","unstructured":"Rao HL, Begum VU, Khadka D, Mandal AK, Senthil S, Garudadri CS. Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0127233. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0127233.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"103_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"171","DOI":"10.1080\/08164622.2023.2288183","volume":"107","author":"J Phu","year":"2024","unstructured":"Phu J, Rafla D, Kalloniatis M. Which glaucoma patients benefit from 10-2 visual field testing? Proposing the functional vulnerability zone framework. Clin Exp Optom. 2024;107:171\u201383. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/08164622.2023.2288183.","journal-title":"Clin Exp Optom"},{"key":"103_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1.","DOI":"10.1167\/tvst.14.8.1","volume":"14","author":"A Turpin","year":"2025","unstructured":"Turpin A, Morgan WH, McKendrick AM. Personalizing the transition from 24-2 to 10-2 visual field testing using ARREST\u2014a simulation study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2025;14:1. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/tvst.14.8.1.","journal-title":"Transl Vis Sci Technol"},{"key":"103_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1022","DOI":"10.1097\/IJG.0000000000002315","volume":"32","author":"YH Hwang","year":"2023","unstructured":"Hwang YH. Utility of central 10 degrees visual field test with size V stimulus in end-stage glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2023;32:1022\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/IJG.0000000000002315.","journal-title":"J Glaucoma"},{"key":"103_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"151","DOI":"10.1136\/bjo.75.3.151","volume":"75","author":"AH Zalta","year":"1991","unstructured":"Zalta AH. Use of a central 10 degrees field and size V stimulus to evaluate and monitor small central islands of vision in end stage glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991;75:151\u20134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bjo.75.3.151.","journal-title":"Br J Ophthalmol"},{"key":"103_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"160","DOI":"10.1111\/opo.12355","volume":"37","author":"J Phu","year":"2017","unstructured":"Phu J, Khuu SK, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M. A comparison of Goldmann III, V and spatially equated test stimuli in visual field testing: the importance of complete and partial spatial summation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2017;37:160\u201376. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/opo.12355.","journal-title":"Ophthalmic Physiol Opt"},{"key":"103_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3667","DOI":"10.1167\/iovs.18-24303","volume":"59","author":"SK Gardiner","year":"2018","unstructured":"Gardiner SK. Differences in the relation between perimetric sensitivity and variability between locations across the visual field. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59:3667\u201374. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1167\/iovs.18-24303.","journal-title":"Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci"}],"container-title":["Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,23]],"date-time":"2026-07-23T12:51:00Z","timestamp":1784811060000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]]},"references-count":29,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]}},"alternative-id":["103"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s44402-026-00103-6","relation":{},"ISSN":["0275-5408","1475-1313"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0275-5408","type":"print"},{"value":"1475-1313","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,11]]},"assertion":[{"value":"8 January 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"24 April 2026","order":2,"name":"revised","label":"Revised","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"24 April 2026","order":3,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"11 May 2026","order":4,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing Interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics"}},{"value":"Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data in de-identified form.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent to Publish","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics"}}]}}