ArticleJournal of glaucoma2018
Prediction Accuracy of the Dynamic Structure-Function Model for Glaucoma Progression Using Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parasympathetic innervation of emmetropization.Experimental eye research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the external validity of a joint structure-function model for monitoring glaucoma progression.Scientific reports · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.