ArticleInternational ophthalmology2018
Pattern noise (PANO): a new automated functional glaucoma test.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo present a newly developed visual field device (pattern noise: PANO) designed to be sensitive to glaucoma defects, cost-effective, material-practical and easy to repair and therefore particularly suited for low-income countries, where glaucoma can be highly prevalent (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa).
methodsThis is primarily a descriptive paper, but it also includes a prospective matched case-control pilot study. Hardware, stimulus, target configuration, testing strategy and result sheet are described. The main outcome measure is the contrast level (range 2-64). Targets are composed of bright/dark pixels flickering with 18 Hz and have a size of 5°. Pixel size is approximated to the hill of vision. Average luminance of targets is constant and equals background luminance.The study was performed in the West Region in Cameroon. Twenty eyes of 20 newly presenting patients with glaucomatous optic disc cupping on funduscopy were compared with 20 eyes of 20 normal patients matched in age and laterality of eye.
resultsMean age was 32.9 ± 18.8 years for glaucoma patients and 32.2 ± 15.6 years for healthy subjects. Mean contrast threshold was significantly higher in eyes with abnormal disc (16.2 ± 14.3 vs. 4.4 ± 0.8, P = 0.002). Correlation of mean contrast thresholds and cup-to-disc ratio was significant (r = 0.59; P = 0.006). Average examination time was significantly longer for glaucoma eyes compared to healthy eyes (8.2 vs. 6.1 min, P < 0.001), whereas error rate did not differ (4.8 ± 2.5% vs. 4.1 ± 1.8%, P = 0.33).
conclusionPANO demonstrated visual field defects in patients with glaucomatous optic disc. Defects correlated significantly with glaucomatous optic nerve head morphological alterations. Healthy eyes obtained normal results. More studies are needed to establish PANO.
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.