Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2017
Using perimetric data to estimate ganglion cell loss for detecting progression of glaucoma: a comparison of models.
Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining the concordance of retinal ganglion cell counts generated using measures of structure and function.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Effects of Criterion Bias on Perimetric Sensitivity and Response Variability in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Increased Equivalent Input Noise in Glaucomatous Central Vision: Is it Due to Undersampling of Retinal Ganglion Cells?Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Observational
- Article
- Imaging and quantifying ganglion cells and other transparent neurons in the living human retina.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeModels relating perimetric sensitivities to ganglion cell numbers have been proposed for combining structural and functional measures from patients with glaucoma. Here we compared seven models for ability to differentiate progressing and stable patients, testing the hypothesis that the model incorporating local spatial scale would have the best performance.
methodsThe models were compared for the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS) data for the right eyes of 489 patients recently diagnosed with glaucoma. The SITA 24-2 program was utilised for perimetry and Stratus OCT fast scanning protocol for thickness of circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL). The first analysis defined progression in terms of decline in RNFL thickness. The highest and lowest quintiles (22 subjects per group) were identified for change in thickness of inferior temporal (IT), superior temporal (ST), and global RNFL (μm year
resultsThe first analysis produced a negative result because the three anovas found no effect of model or interaction of model and group (F
conclusionsTwo very different approaches for testing the hypothesis both gave a negative result. For all seven ganglion cell models, rates of ganglion cell loss were highly affected by fluctuations in height of the hill of vision. Methods for reducing effects of between-visit variability are needed in order to assess progression by relating perimetric sensitivities and ganglion cell numbers.
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.