Trial reportOphthalmology2017
Binocular Measures of Visual Acuity and Visual Field versus Binocular Approximations.
Trial report in Ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saccadic Reaction Times and Computational Modelling Reveal Heterogeneous Binocular Summation in Glaucomatous Visual Fields.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Comparison of vision-related quality of life in patients with homonymous hemianopia and monocular blindness.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Binocular Interactions in Glaucoma Patients With Nonoverlapping Visual Field Defects: Contrast Summation, Rivalry, and Phase Combination.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2021Article
- The impact of visual symptoms on the quality of life of patients with early to moderate glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2018Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the relationship of binocular visual function tests with binocular approximations using data from the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS).
designCase series based on existing data from a clinical trial.
participantsSix hundred seven patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma from the CIGTS.
methodsMonocular visual field (VF) and visual acuity (VA) tests were performed at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Binocular tests of visual function (Esterman VF score, binocular VA) were added to the CIGTS protocol 3 years into the study. The binocular approximations of binocular visual function were better or worse eye, average eye, better or worse location, and binocular summation or pointwise binocular summation. Associations between binocular tests and binocular approximations to represent binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson's correlations (r), as was the relationship between vision-related quality of life (VR QOL; Visual Activities Questionnaire [VAQ] and the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire [NEI VFQ-25]) and binocular tests or binocular approximations of visual function.
main outcome measuresBinocular visual function (VF and VA) and VR QOL.
resultsFive hundred seventy-five patients underwent at least 1 binocular visual function test. The Esterman score was correlated significantly with all binocular approximations of VF, with r values ranging from 0.31 (worse-eye mean deviation [MD]) to 0.42 (better-eye MD; P < 0.0001 for all). Binocular VA showed stronger correlations with binocular approximations, with r values ranging from 0.65 (worse-eye VA) to 0.80 (binocular summation; P < 0.0001 for all). Correlations between the VAQ and Esterman score were stronger in 7 of 9 subscales (r = -0.14 to -0.25; P < 0.05 for all) than correlations with all 7 binocular approximations. In contrast, correlations between the VAQ and binocular VA (r = -0.07 to -0.21) were weaker in all subscales than those with better-eye, average-eye, and binocular summation of VA (r = -0.12 to -0.25), but not different from worse-eye values. These trends also were found in relevant subscales of the NEI VFQ-25.
conclusionsWe found limited benefit in binocular testing of VA in the clinical setting as a means of approximating a patient's reported visual functioning. In contrast, we found some benefit in performing binocular VF testing, because the results correlated more closely with reported functioning than binocular approximations.
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.