Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25237592›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2014

Assessment of Central Retinal Sensitivity Employing Two Types of Microperimetry Devices.

Hongting Liu, Millena G Bittencourt, Jiangxia Wang, Raafay Sophie, Rachel Annam, Mohamed A Ibrahim, Yasir J Sepah, Ahmadreza Moradi, Hendrik P N Scholl, Quan Dong Nguyen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Visual Function Assessment in Geographic Atrophy: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Clinical Perspectives and Trends: Microperimetry as a Trial Endpoint in Retinal Disease.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Microperimetry - A New Tool for Assessing Retinal Sensitivity in Macular Diseases.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017
    Article
  12. Fixation Stability Measurement Using Two Types of Microperimetry Devices.Translational vision science & technology · 2015
    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.

Hongting LiuWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD ; Visual Science and Optometry Center, People's Hospital of Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi province, China.
Millena G BittencourtWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Jiangxia WangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Raafay SophieWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Rachel AnnamWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Mohamed A IbrahimStanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Yasir J SepahStanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Ahmadreza MoradiWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Hendrik P N SchollWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Quan Dong NguyenStanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with two microperimeters, the Micro-Perimeter 1 (MP-1) and the Optos optical coherence tomography (OCT)/scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) in subjects with and without maculopathies.

methodsForty-five eyes with no known ocular disease and 47 eyes with maculopathies were examined using both microperimeters. A contrast-adjusted scale was applied to resolve the different stimuli and background luminance existing between the two devices.

resultsThere was a strong ceiling effect with the MP-1 in the healthy group, with 90.1% (1136 of 1260) test points clustered at 20 dB. The mean sensitivity for the corresponding points in the OCT/SLO was 25.8 ± 1.9 dB. A floor effect was also observed with the OCT/SLO in the maculopathy group with 9.7% (128 of 1316) points clustered at 9-dB values. The corresponding mean sensitivity in the MP-1 was 1.7 ± 3.9 dB. A regression equation between the two microperimeters was established in the common 10 to19 dB intervals as: OCT/SLO = 15.6 + 0.564 × MP-1 - 0.009 × MP-1

conclusionThe OCT/SLO and the MP-1 provide two different ranges of contrasts for microperimetry examination. Broadening the dynamic range may minimize the constraint of the ceiling and floor effect. There is a significant mathematical relationship in the common interval of the contrast scale. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Applying a unified and broadened dynamic range in different types of microperimeters will help to generate consistent clinical reference for measurements.

Indexed as

comparisonmicroperimetryretinal sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID25237592
PMCPMC4164074

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.