ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2019
Comparison of defect depths for sinusoidal and circular perimetric stimuli in patients with glaucoma.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of dynamic gratings in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Scaling the size of perimetric stimuli reduces variability and returns constant thresholds across the visual field.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Functional characteristics of glaucoma related arcuate defects seen on OCT en face visualisation of the retinal nerve fibre layer.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- Custom extraction of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness more precisely co-localizes structural measurements with visual fields test grids.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Assessing the Impact of En Face Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Imaging on Clinical Decision Making for Glaucoma Suspects.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeClinical use of perimetric testing in patients with glaucoma typically assumes that perimetric defects will be less deep for larger than smaller stimuli. However, studies have shown that very large sinusoidal stimuli can yield similar defects as small circular stimuli. In order to provide guidelines for new perimetric stimuli, we tested patients with glaucoma using five different stimuli and compared defects to their patterns of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) damage.
methodsTwenty subjects with glaucoma were imaged with optical coherence tomography (OCT) volume scans to allow for en face RNFL images and were also tested on a custom perimetry station with five stimuli: Goldmann sizes III and V, a two-dimensional Gaussian blob (standard deviation 0.5°) and a 0.5 cycle degree
resultsBland-Altman analysis confirmed the three predictions. The flickered sinusoid gave deeper defects in damaged areas than the pulsed sinusoid (r = 0.25, p < 0.0001). When comparing data for sizes III and V there was increased spread of the data in deeper defects in the direction of size III having deeper defect (r = 0.35, p < 0.0001). The size V stimulus yielded shallower defects than a stimulus of similar size but with blurred edges (r = 0.20, p = 0.0004).
conclusionsOn average, all stimuli produced similar results comparing across type of RNFL damage. However, there were systematic patterns consistent with predictions of neural modelling: in damaged areas, depth of defect tended to be greater for the flickered sinusoid than the pulsed sinusoid, greater for the size III stimulus than the size V stimulus, and greater for the Gaussian blob than for the size V stimulus.
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.