Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29718751›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmic epidemiology2018

Regression Discontinuity and Randomized Controlled Trial Estimates: An Application to The Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trials.

Catherine E Oldenburg, N Venkatesh Prajna, Tiruvengada Krishnan, Revathi Rajaraman, Muthiah Srinivasan, Kathryn J Ray, Kieran S O'Brien, M Maria Glymour, Travis C Porco, Nisha R Acharya and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmic epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Catherine E Oldenburga Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
N Venkatesh Prajnab Aravind Eye Care System , Madurai , India.
Tiruvengada Krishnanc Aravind Eye Care System , Pondicherry , India.
Revathi Rajaramand Aravind Eye Care System , Coimbatore , India.
Muthiah Srinivasanb Aravind Eye Care System , Madurai , India.
Kathryn J Raya Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Kieran S O'Briena Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
M Maria Glymoure Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Travis C Porcoa Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Nisha R Acharyaa Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumera Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Thomas M Lietmana Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California , San Francisco , USA.
Aravind Eye Hospital · INSan Francisco Foundation · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Rapid-Prototyping and Design CoreP30EY002162 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LAMBA, DEEPAK ASHOK · 1985 to 2024
$16.8M
Myocotic Ulcer Treatment TrialU10EY018573 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LIETMAN, THOMAS M · 2009 to 2014
$3.7M
The Brown Initiative in HIV and AIDS Clinical Research for Minority CommunitiesR25MH083620 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI NUNN, AMY STEWART · 2008 to 2025
$3.7M
Predictions of Response to Treatment in Fungal KeratitisK23EY025025 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROSE-NUSSBAUMER, JENNIFER · 2015 to 2019
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY025025NEI NIH HHS L40 EY028421NEI NIH HHS U10 EY018573NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH083620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compare results from regression discontinuity (RD) analysis to primary results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) utilizing data from two contemporaneous RCTs for treatment of fungal corneal ulcers.

methodsPatients were enrolled in the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trials I and II (MUTT I & MUTT II) based on baseline visual acuity: patients with acuity ≤ 20/400 (logMAR 1.3) enrolled in MUTT I, and >20/400 in MUTT II. MUTT I investigated the effect of topical natamycin versus voriconazole on best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. MUTT II investigated the effect of topical voriconazole plus placebo versus topical voriconazole plus oral voriconazole. We compared the RD estimate (natamycin arm of MUTT I [N = 162] versus placebo arm of MUTT II [N = 54]) to the RCT estimate from MUTT I (topical natamycin [N = 162] versus topical voriconazole [N = 161]).

resultsIn the RD, patients receiving natamycin had mean improvement of 4-lines of visual acuity at 3 months (logMAR -0.39, 95% CI: -0.61, -0.17) compared to topical voriconazole plus placebo, and 2-lines in the RCT (logMAR -0.18, 95% CI: -0.30, -0.05) compared to topical voriconazole.

conclusionsThe RD and RCT estimates were similar, although the RD design overestimated effects compared to the RCT.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdministration, OralAgedAntifungal AgentsCorneaCorneal UlcerDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodEye Infections, FungalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFungiHumansMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmic SolutionsAntifungal AgentsOphthalmic SolutionsVoriconazoleCausal inferencefungal keratitisrandomized controlled trialregression discontinuity

Identifiers

PMID29718751
PMCPMC5980795
OpenAlexW2801352532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.