Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual fields obtained with Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast from patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with glaucoma (median mean deviation [MD], -7.6 dB; interquartile range [IQR], -15.3 to -2.6 dB) and 22 healthy participants (median MD, -0.6 dB; IQR, -1.7 to 0.2 dB) 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 Analyzer. Tests were repeated within 90 days (median, 14 days; range, 7-26 days) to evaluate the test-retest variability. RESULTS: The mean difference between the MD of the ZATA Standard and SITA Standard tests was 1.7 dB (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.4). Between ZATA Fast and SITA Fast, it was 0.9 dB (95% CI, 0.2-1.5 dB). Although there were systematic differences between the distributions of sensitivity estimates with ZATA and SITA, they did not affect the overall representation of damage by these tests. ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast were approximately 30% and 6% faster, respectively, than the corresponding SITA tests. 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 patients with glaucoma are followed over time. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study examined the characteristics of ZATA visual field tests in a clinical population, and it supports the adoption of these tests for assessing patients with glaucoma.