Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29940588›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic research2019

Scotopic Microperimetric Assessment of Rod Function in Stargardt Disease (SMART) Study: Design and Baseline Characteristics (Report No. 1).

Rupert W Strauss, Xiangrong Kong, Millena G Bittencourt, Alexander Ho, Anamika Jha, Etienne M Schönbach, Mohamed I Ahmed, Beatriz Muñoz, Ann-Margret Ervin, Michel Michaelides and 10 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Role of the Choroid in Stargardt Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of Local Rod and Cone Function in Stargardt Disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Perspectives and Trends: Microperimetry as a Trial Endpoint in Retinal Disease.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Rupert W StraussWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Xiangrong KongWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Millena G BittencourtWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alexander HoDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Anamika JhaDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Etienne M SchönbachWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mohamed I AhmedWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Beatriz MuñozWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ann-Margret ErvinWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michel MichaelidesMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
David G BirchRetina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, USA.
José-Alain SahelSorbonne Universités, University Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) Université de Paris 06, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut de la Vision, Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie (CHNO) des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Janet S SunnessHoover Low Vision Rehabilitation Services, Greater Baltimore Medical Center and University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Eberhart ZrennerCenter for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany.
Saghar BagheriWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael IpDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
SriniVas SaddaDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Sheila WestWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Hendrik P N SchollWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USAHendrik.Scholl@usb.ch.
for the SMART Study Group
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USRetina Foundation of the Southwest · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

MEASURES OF HUMAN RECEPTOR AND POST RECEPTOR ACTIVITYR01EY009076 · NEI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI BIRCH, DAVID G, HOOD, DONALD C. · 1991 to 2021
$8.3M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY009076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe the study design and characteristics at first visit of participants in the longitudinal Scotopic Microperimetric Assessment of Rod Function in Stargardt Disease (SMART) study.

methodsScotopic microperimetry (sMP) was performed in one designated study eye in a subset of participants with molecularly proven ABCA4-associated Stargardt disease (STGD1) enrolled in a multicenter natural history study (ProgStar). Study visits were every 6 months over a period ranging from 6 to 24 months, and also included fundus autofluorescence (FAF).

resultsSMART enrolled 118 participants (118 eyes). At the first visit of SMART, the mean sensitivity in mesopic microperimetry was 11.48 (±5.05; range 0.00-19.88) dB and in sMP 11.25 (±5.26; 0-19.25) dB. For FAF, all eyes had a lesion of decreased autofluorescence (mean lesion size 3.62 [±3.48; 0.10-21.46] mm2), and a total of 76 eyes (65.5%) had a lesion of definitely decreased autofluorescence with a mean lesion size of 3.46 (±3.60; 0.21-21.46) mm2.

conclusionsRod function is impaired in STGD1 and can be assessed by sMP. Testing rod function may serve as a potential outcome measure for future clinical treatment trials. This is evaluated in the SMART study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedNight VisionResearch DesignRetinal Rod Photoreceptor CellsStargardt DiseaseVisual AcuityVisual FieldsVisual Field TestsYoung AdultClinical trialsEndpointsMesopic microperimetryScotopic microperimetryStargardt disease

Identifiers

PMID29940588
PMCPMC7175756
OpenAlexW2811408473

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.