ArticleEye (London, England)2017
Developing new automated alternation flicker using optic disc photography for the detection of glaucoma progression.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Prediction of Functional Glaucoma Progression From Clinical and Structural Data.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Prediction of Visual Field Progression with Baseline and Longitudinal Structural Measurements Using Deep Learning.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo evaluate a progression-detecting algorithm for a new automated matched alternation flicker (AMAF) in glaucoma patients.MethodsOpen-angle glaucoma patients with a baseline mean deviation of visual field (VF) test>-6 dB were included in this longitudinal and retrospective study. Functional progression was detected by two VF progression criteria and structural progression by both AMAF and conventional comparison methods using optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) photography. Progression-detecting performances of AMAF and the conventional method were evaluated by an agreement between functional and structural progression criteria. RNFL thickness changes measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) were compared between progressing and stable eyes determined by each method.ResultsAmong 103 eyes, 47 (45.6%), 21 (20.4%), and 32 (31.1%) eyes were evaluated as glaucoma progression using AMAF, the conventional method, and guided progression analysis (GPA) of the VF test, respectively. The AMAF showed better agreement than the conventional method, using GPA of the VF test (κ=0.337; P<0.001 and κ=0.124; P=0.191, respectively). The rates of RNFL thickness decay using OCT were significantly different between the progressing and stable eyes when progression was determined by AMAF (-3.49±2.86 μm per year vs -1.83±3.22 μm per year; P=0.007) but not by the conventional method (-3.24±2.42 μm per year vs -2.42±3.33 μm per year; P=0.290).ConclusionsThe AMAF was better than the conventional comparison method in discriminating structural changes during glaucoma progression, and showed a moderate agreement with functional progression criteria.
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.