Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29917001›Full record

ArticleJournal of glaucoma2018

Prediction Accuracy of the Dynamic Structure-Function Model for Glaucoma Progression Using Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy.

Koosha Ramezani, Iván Marín-Franch, Rongrong Hu, William H Swanson, Lyne Racette

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Parasympathetic innervation of emmetropization.Experimental eye research · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Koosha RamezaniDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Iván Marín-FranchDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Rongrong HuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eugene and Marilyn Glick Eye Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
William H SwansonIndiana University School of Optometry, Bloomington, IN.
Lyne RacetteDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USIndiana University Bloomington · USIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

APPLICATION OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL MODELS TO VISUAL DISORDERSR01EY007716 · NEI · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI SWANSON, WILLIAM H. · 1997 to 2013
$4.7M
3D RNFL Structure And High-Resolution Perimetry For Assessing Glaucomatous DamageR01EY024542 · NEI · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI SWANSON, WILLIAM H. · 2014 to 2023
$3.2M
Early detection of glaucoma progression using a novel individualized approachR01EY025756 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI RACETTE, LYNE · 2016 to 2021
$1.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY007716NEI NIH HHS R01 EY024542NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025756
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine whether combining a structural measure with contrast sensitivity perimetry (CSP), which has lower test-retest variability than static automated perimetry (SAP), reduces prediction error with 2 models of glaucoma progression.

methodsIn this retrospective analysis, eyes with 5 visits with rim area (RA), SAP, and CSP measures were selected from 2 datasets. Twenty-six eyes with open-angle glaucoma were included in the analyses. For CSP and SAP, mean sensitivity (MS) was obtained by converting the sensitivity values at each location from decibel (SAP) or log units (CSP) to linear units, and then averaging all values. MS and RA values were expressed as percent of mean normal based on independent normative data. Data from the first 3 and 4 visits were used to calculate errors in prediction for the fourth and fifth visits, respectively. Prediction errors were obtained for simple linear regression and the dynamic structure-function (DSF) model.

resultsWith linear regression, the median prediction errors ranged from 6% to 17% when SAP MS and RA were used and from 9% to 17% when CSP MS and RA were used. With the DSF model, the median prediction errors ranged from 6% to 11% when SAP MS and RA were used and from 7% to 16% when CSP MS and RA were used.

conclusionsThe DSF model had consistently lower prediction errors than simple linear regression. The lower test-retest variability of CSP in glaucomatous defects did not, however, result in lower prediction error.

Indexed as

AgedContrast SensitivityDisease ProgressionFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureLinear ModelsMaleMicroscopy, ConfocalMiddle AgedOphthalmoscopyRetrospective StudiesVisual FieldsVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID29917001
PMCPMC6147243
OpenAlexW2809304236

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.