Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21498610›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2011

Ophthalmic phenotypes and the representativeness of twin data for the general population.

Paul G Sanfilippo, Sarah E Medland, Alex W Hewitt, Lisa S Kearns, Jonathan B Ruddle, Cong Sun, Christopher J Hammond, Terri L Young, Nicholas G Martin, David A Mackey

Abstract readTwin Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Model of naturally occurring refractive error (NORE) in mice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The heritability of dry eye disease in a female twin cohort.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2014
    Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Paul G SanfilippoCentre for Eye Research Australia, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sarah E Medland
Alex W Hewitt
Lisa S Kearns
Jonathan B Ruddle
Cong Sun
Christopher J Hammond
Terri L Young
Nicholas G Martin
David A Mackey

Funding

The Molecular Genetics of High MyopiaR01EY014685 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI YOUNG, TERRI LOIS · 2003 to 2017
$8.1M
International Collaborative Twin Study of Refractive and Glaucoma EndophenotypesR01EY018246 · NEI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI YOUNG, TERRI LOIS · 2007 to 2009
$1.8M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY014685NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the distributional parameters for a series of ocular biometric traits between twins and their singleton siblings, to evaluate the generalizability of twin data, as used in heritability analyses to the general population.

methodsA series of birth, anthropometric, and 13 ocular biometric traits were selected for analysis: interpupillary distance (IPD), visual acuity (logMAR), spherical equivalent refractive error, corneal curvature, axial length, anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), intraocular pressure (IOP), optic disc, cup and rim areas, and measures of retinal vessel caliber; central retinal arteriolar equivalent (CRAE), and central retinal venular equivalent (CRVE). Structural equation modeling was used to test the assumption that the means and variances for each trait did not differ between twins and their siblings.

resultsSignificant differences in log-likelihood for birth weight and gestational age were observed between twins and siblings, with the latter being both heavier and closer to full-term at birth. Siblings were also found to have larger IPD and axial length, and better visual acuity compared with their twin counterparts. Refractive error, corneal curvature, ACD, CCT, optic disc parameters, and retinal vascular calibers did not differ significantly between the two groups.

conclusionsTwins are representative of the general population for some but not all measures of ocular biometry. Consequently, care should be taken when extrapolating twin data for these traits in heritability and other genetic studies. Birth weight differences between twins and siblings do not appear to account for the differences in ocular biometry observed in this study.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnterior ChamberAnthropometryBiometryChildChild, PreschoolCorneaEyeFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornIntraocular Pressure

Identifiers

PMID21498610
PMCPMC3984135

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.