Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24290806›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2014

Defining 10-2 visual field progression criteria: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using pointwise linear regression.

Carlos Gustavo de Moraes, Christian Song, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Joseph L Simonson, Rafael L Furlanetto, Robert Ritch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Comparison of Rates of Progression of Macular OCT Measures in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carlos Gustavo de MoraesDepartment of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York. Electronic address: gus.moraes@nyumc.org.
Christian SongDepartment of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Jeffrey M LiebmannDepartment of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York.
Joseph L SimonsonEinhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York.
Rafael L FurlanettoEinhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York.
Robert RitchEinhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York; Department of Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo test different visual field progression criteria using trend analysis in a glaucoma population followed with long sequences of 10-2 tests as a first attempt to understand and document rates of progression in the central field.

designRetrospective cohort study.

participantsWe included 146 eyes of 146 patients with established glaucoma.

methodsPointwise linear regression analysis using the methods of ordinary least squares was performed on the 68 test locations of the 10-2 visual field sequences. Threshold sensitivities at each test location were plotted as the dependent variable against follow-up time as the independent variable. Statistically significant progression or improvement of a visual field test point was defined if its regression slope measured ≤-1.0 dB/year or ≥+1.0 dB/year, respectively, at P<0.01. We explored sets of criteria to define visual field progression, generating a hypothetical sensitivity (progression), specificity (improvement), and progression-to-improvement ratio (PIR) for each criterion. The criterion with the highest PIR was deemed the one with best performance. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to determine visual field sectors with highest inter-correlation.

main outcome measuresThe performance of different visual field progression criteria to detect fast rates of mean deviation (MD) change.

resultsMedian baseline 10-2 MD value was -12.0 dB (interquartile range [IQR], -6.7 to -17.8 dB), and the median rate of 10-2 MD change over time was -0.38 dB/year (IQR, -0.07 to -0.77 dB/year). The highest PIR was obtained with the progression criterion requiring at least 3 test points located in the same LCA-derived 10-2 visual field sector progressing faster than -1.0 dB/year at P<0.01. This criterion was further validated for content and convergence.

conclusionsThis is the first study to investigate progression criteria for 10-2 visual fields using rates of change and to test their performance and validity. These findings may be useful to improve the monitoring of patients with glaucoma at different levels of functional loss and to develop new perimetric algorithms that scrutinize specific visual field locations for a more accurate detection of progression.

Indexed as

Visual FieldsCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFalse Positive ReactionsGlaucomaHumansLinear ModelsNerve FibersOptic Nerve DiseasesPredictive Value of TestsRetinal Ganglion CellsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityVision DisordersVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

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.