Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30029253›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2018

Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.

Stuart K Gardiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Clinical Effective Dynamic Range and the Measurement Floor of SITA-Faster Visual Field Tests.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Exploring the relationship between 24-2 visual field and widefield optical coherence tomography data across healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma eyes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Long- and Short-Term Variability of Perimetry in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Stuart K GardinerDevers Eye Institute, Legacy Health, Portland, Oregon, United States.

Funding

Functional Testing for GlaucomaR01EY020922 · NEI · LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER · PI GARDINER, STUART · 2011 to 2021
$3.2M
Predicting the rate of progression in glaucomaR01EY019674 · NEI · LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER · PI DEMIREL, SHABAN · 2009 to 2013
$1.8M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019674NEI NIH HHS R01 EY020922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Perimetric sensitivities become more variable with glaucomatous functional loss. This study examines the extent to which this relation varies between locations, and whether this can be predicted by eccentricity-related differences in spatial summation. Methods: Longitudinal series of visual fields from standard automated perimetry were obtained from participants with suspected or extant glaucoma. For each location in the 24-2 visual field, heterogeneous fixed-effects models were fit to the data, assuming that variability increased exponentially as sensitivity decreased. The predicted variability at each location was calculated when sensitivity was either 30 dB or 25 dB. Results: Variability significantly increased with damage at all 52 locations. When sensitivity was 30 dB, variability increased with eccentricity, with P = 0.0003. The average SD was 1.54 dB at the four most central locations, versus 1.74 dB at the most peripheral locations. When sensitivity was 25 dB, variability did not vary predictably with eccentricity, with P = 0.340. The average SD was 2.36 dB at the four central locations, versus 2.24 dB at the most peripheral locations. Conclusions: The relation between sensitivity and variability differed by eccentricity. Among healthy locations, variability was lower centrally, where the stimulus size is larger than Ricco's area, than peripherally. Among damaged locations, variability did not systematically vary with eccentricity. This could be because Ricco's area expands in glaucoma, such that stimuli were now smaller than this area at all locations.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAgedAlgorithmsDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationRetrospective StudiesSensory ThresholdsTime FactorsVisual FieldsVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID30029253
PMCPMC6054428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.