ArticleScientific reports2018
Impact of Different Visual Field Testing Paradigms on Sample Size Requirements for Glaucoma Clinical Trials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nicotinamide and Pyruvate in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Neuroprotection-Design and Methodology.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaTrial
- Artificial Intelligence-Guided Endpoint Selection for Neuroprotection Trials in Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Neuroinflammatory regulatory role of microglia in optic nerve injury: from pathological mechanisms to therapeutic targets.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Performance of General-Purpose Vision Language Models and Ophthalmology Foundation Models in Glaucoma Detection and Function Prediction.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- PyGlaucoMetrics: A Stacked Weight-Based Machine Learning Approach for Glaucoma Detection Using Visual Field Data.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Short-term Detection of Fast Progressors in Glaucoma: The Fast Progression Assessment through Clustered Evaluation (Fast-PACE) Study.Ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Self-management challenges and support needs among patients with primary glaucoma: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- Phase I NT-501 Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor Implant Trial for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Safety, Neuroprotection, and Neuroenhancement.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of Peripapillary OCT Scans and Visual Fields to Detect Glaucoma Worsening.Ophthalmology · 2023Article
- A potential primary endpoint for clinical trials in glaucoma neuroprotection.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Visual Field Prediction: Evaluating the Clinical Relevance of Deep Learning Models.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Number of Peripapillary OCT Scans Needed to Detect Glaucoma Worsening.Ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Article
- Fundus-controlled perimetry (microperimetry): Application as outcome measure in clinical trials.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- The Relationship Between Intraocular Pressure and Rates of Central Versus Peripheral Visual Field Progression.Journal of glaucoma · 2020Observational
- Deep Learning Approaches Predict Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage from OCT Optic Nerve Head En Face Images and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Maps.Ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Comparison of Short- And Long-Term Variability in Standard Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Sample Size Requirements of Glaucoma Clinical Trials When Using Combined Optical Coherence Tomography and Visual Field Endpoints.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Consistency of Online Circular Contrast Perimetry Across Different Computer Monitors: A Cross-sectional Study.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual field testing is an important endpoint in glaucoma clinical trials, and the testing paradigm used can have a significant impact on the sample size requirements. To investigate this, this study included 353 eyes of 247 glaucoma patients seen over a 3-year period to extract real-world visual field rates of change and variability estimates to provide sample size estimates from computer simulations. The clinical trial scenario assumed that a new treatment was added to one of two groups that were both under routine clinical care, with various treatment effects examined. Three different visual field testing paradigms were evaluated: a) evenly spaced testing, b) United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS) follow-up scheme, which adds clustered tests at the beginning and end of follow-up in addition to evenly spaced testing, and c) clustered testing paradigm, with clusters of tests at the beginning and end of the trial period and two intermediary visits. The sample size requirements were reduced by 17-19% and 39-40% using the UKGTS and clustered testing paradigms, respectively, when compared to the evenly spaced approach. These findings highlight how the clustered testing paradigm can substantially reduce sample size requirements and improve the feasibility of future glaucoma clinical trials.
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.