ArticleEye (London, England)2016
Glaucoma detection with damato multifixation campimetry online.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of portable visual field-testing devices for detecting manifest glaucomatous visual-field loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Development and Validation of an Internet-Based Remote Perimeter (Perimouse).Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Pattern noise (PANO): a new automated functional glaucoma test.International ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Comparison of the Automated Pattern-Noise (PANO) Glaucoma Test with the HFA, an FDT Stimulus, and the Fundus Area Cup-to-disk Ratio.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo evaluate Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online (DMCO), a free-of-charge internet-based visual field test. DMCO exists in three versions: DMCO BASIC, DMCO STANDARD, and DMCO ADVANCED. The main focus was (i) to investigate the sensitivity and the specificity of the existing DMCO versions in the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss and (ii) to define and evaluate algorithms for the interpretation of DMCO results.MethodsThe study design was an evaluation of a diagnostic test and included 97 individuals performing DMCO and white-on-white perimetry. Interpretation algorithms were devised to define abnormality, and these were evaluated using the Glaucoma Staging System as gold standard. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC (AUC) were calculated.ResultsAUCs from 15 algorithms ranged from 0.79 to 0.90. The most promising algorithm combined results from two successive DMCO STANDARD tests. The sensitivity was highly dependent on the severity of glaucoma. Hence, for eyes with mild, moderate, advanced, and severe glaucoma, the DMCO test demonstrated a sensitivity of 11.8, 71.4, 100, and 100%, respectively. The specificity was as high as 98.1%. Median duration per eye to complete the DMCO STANDARD test was 86 s for the control group and 125 s in participants with glaucoma.ConclusionsDMCO shows promise as a free-of-charge online tool to identify glaucomatous visual field defects in a preselected population. Ongoing studies are evaluating the use of DMCO in a nonselected population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.