Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17322466›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of ophthalmology2007

The Amsler chart: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Michael Crossland, Gary Rubin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Visual Field Dependence Persists in Age-Related Central Visual Field Loss.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael CrosslandUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, UK. m.crossland@ucl.ac.uk
Gary Rubin
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of the onset or progression of macular disease is likely to become increasingly important as new treatment modalities are introduced. Current best practice involves issuing patients with an Amsler chart for daily or weekly observation with the instruction to attend for immediate assessment should any new distortion be perceived. However the sensitivity of Amsler charts in detecting macular disease can be less than 50%, implying that presentation may be delayed in over half of patients with advancing disease relying on the Amsler chart to detect progression. A likely explanation for this is the phenomenon of perceptual completion whereby regular objects are "filled-in" across the scotoma. Although alternative tests have been developed and shown to have greater sensitivity, at present no straightforward, cheap, home-based test of macular disease progression is available. The development of such a self-diagnostic tool should be a research priority.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionEarly DiagnosisFalse Negative ReactionsHumansMacular DegenerationPerceptual ClosureVision ScreeningVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID17322466
PMCPMC1857645
OpenAlexW1549215040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.