Purpose: To compare the Full Threshold (FF) and SITA Standard (SS) strategies in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. Methods: Thirty-one glaucomatous patients who had never undergone perimetry underwent automated perimetry (Humphrey, program 30-2) with both FT and SS on the same day, with an interval of at least 15 minutes. The order of the examination was randomized, and only one eye per patient was analyzed. Three analyses were performed: a) all the examinations, regardless of the order of application; b) only the first examinations; c) only the second examinations. In order to calculate the sensitivity of both strategies, the following criteria were used to define abnormality: glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation (PSD) <5%, or a cluster of 3 adjacent points with p<5% at the pattern deviation probability plot. Results: When the results of all examinations were analyzed regardless of the order in which they were performed, the number of depressed points with p<0.5% in the pattern deviation probability map was significantly greater with SS (p=0.037), and the sensitivities were 87.1 % for SS and 77.4% for FT (p=0.506). When only the first examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, but the sensitivity of SS (100%) was significantly greater than that obtained with FT (70.6%) (p=0.048). When only the second examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, and the sensitivities of SS (76.5%) and FT (85.7%) (p=0.664). Conclusion: SS may have a higher sensitivity than FT in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. However, this difference tends to disappear in subsequent examinations.692145150Anderson, D.R., Patella, V.M., (1999) Automated Static Perimetry, , 2a ed. St Louis: Mosby Year BookCosta, V.P., (2000) Perimetria Computadorizada: Um Guia Básico De Interpretação, , 2a ed. São Paulo: RioMedShirato, S., Inoue, R., Fukushima, K., Suzuki, Y., Clinical evaluation of SITA: A new family of parimetric testing strategies (1999) Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 237 (1), pp. 29-34Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A., Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma (1998) Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 76 (3), pp. 268-272Artes, P.H., Iwase, A., Ohno, Y., Kitazawa, Y., Chauhan, B.C., Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast Strategies (2002) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 43 (8), pp. 2654-2659Sharma, A.K., Goldberg, I., Graham, S.L., Mohsin, M., Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies (2000) J Glaucoma, 9 (1), pp. 20-27Schimiti, R.B., Costa, V.P., Perimetria computadorizada Humphrey (2003) Semiologia Ocular, pp. 289-300. , Yamane R. 2a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Cultura MédicaWild, J.M., Pacey, I.E., Hancock, S.A., Cunliffe, I.A., Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm (1999) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 40 (6), pp. 1152-1161Sekhar, G.C., Naduvilath, T.J., Lakkai, M., Jayakumar, A.J., Pandi, G.T., Mandal, A.K., Honavar, S.G., Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing (2000) Ophthalmology, 107 (7), pp. 1303-1308Budenz, D.L., Rhee, P., Feuer, W.J., McSoley, J., Johnson, C.A., Anderson, D.R., Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects (2002) Ophthalmology, 109 (6), pp. 1052-1058Cbylack Jr., L.T., Wolfe, J.K., Singer, D.M., Leske, M.C., Bullimore, M.A., Bailey, I.L., The Lens Opacities Classification System III (1993) Arch Ophthalmol, 111 (6), pp. 831-836. , The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study GroupBudenz, D.L., Rhee, P., Feuer, W.J., McSoley, J., Johnson, C.A., Anderson, D.R., Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish interactive threshold algorithms (2002) Arch Ophthalmol, 120 (9), pp. 1136-1141Wild, J.M., Pacey, I.E., O'Neill, E.C., Cunliffe, I.A., The SITA perimetric threshold algorithm in glaucoma (1999) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 40 (9), pp. 1998-2009Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A., Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC (1999) Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 77 (2), pp. 125-129Yenice, O., Temel, A., Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: Full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect (2005) Eur J Ophthalmol, 15 (2), pp. 209-212Heijl, A., Bengtsson, B., The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma (1996) Arch Ophthalmol, 14 (1), pp. 19-22Schimiti, R.B., Avelino, R.R., Kara-José, N., Costa, V.P., Full-threshold versus Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) in normal individuals undergoing automated perimetry for the first time (2002) Ophthalmology, 109 (11), pp. 2084-2092. , discussion 2092Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A., Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies (1999) Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 77 (2), pp. 143-146Garway-Heath, D.F., Hitchings, R.A., Sources of bias in studies of optic disc and retinal nerve fibre layer morphology (1998) Br J Ophthalmol, 82 (9), p. 986