ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2018
A New Graphical Tool for Assessing Visual Field Progression in Clinical Populations.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supporting clinical reasoning through visual summarization and presentation of patient data: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating multidisciplinary glaucoma care: visual field progression and loss of sight year analysis in the community vs hospital setting.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Article
- The relationship between axial length, age and intraocular pressure in children with primary congenital glaucoma.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Auditing service delivery in glaucoma clinics using visual field records: a feasibility study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe demonstrate a new approach for assessing and visualizing visual field (VF) progression in clinics.
methodsTwo summary measures for VF progression, Rate of Progression (RP) and Loss of Sight Years (LSY), are combined with a novel visualization (Hedgehog Plots). RP is calculated per eye using linear regression of mean deviation (MD) against time of follow-up. LSY is a novel parameter, linked to actuarial data, which estimates the number of years that a patient will have advanced bilateral VF loss in their predicted remaining lifetime. Every eye is given a rank within the sample based on RP and LSY allowing for "priority" patients to be identified. We illustrate differences between the parameters with an experiment comparing the cases flagged as "priority" by each method using data from 1263 VF records.
resultsRP for every eye in a "clinic" can be visualized and assessed using a Hedgehog Plot. Eyes are ranked against all other eyes by RP and LSY; these parameters provide different and complementary information on a patient's VF progression status. A purpose written interactive application demonstrating the techniques is available in the public domain at https://crabblab.shinyapps.io/hedgehog.
conclusionHedgehog Plots provide a tool for visualizing VF progression in groups of patients and can be used potentially to prioritize monitoring resources. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study illustrates a novel visualization technique and an interactive application that can be used to help determine VF progression in large groups of patients.
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.