Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30801992›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2019

Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter?

Stephen R Kelly, Susan R Bryan, David P Crabb

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen R KellyDivision of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Science, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4334-9355
Susan R BryanDivision of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Science, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-0668
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Science, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8754-3902
City, University of London · GB

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant 675033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn spite of faster examination procedures, visual field (VF) results are potentially influenced by fatigue. We use large-scale VF data collected from clinics to test the hypothesis that perimetric fatigue effects are greater in the eye examined second.

methodsSeries of six Humphrey Swedish Interactive Testing Algorithm (SITA) VFs from 6901 patients were retrospectively extracted from a VF database from four different glaucoma clinics. Mean deviation (MD) was compared between first and second tested eyes. A surrogate measure of longitudinal MD variability over time was estimated from errors using linear regression of MD against time then compared between first and second tested eye.

resultsRight eye VF was tested consistently first throughout in 6320 (91.6%) patients. Median (interquartile range; IQR) MD in the first tested (right) eye and second tested (left) eye was -2.57 (-6.15, -0.58) dB and -2.70 (-6.34, -0.80) dB respectively (median reduction VF sensitivity of 0.13 dB; p < 0.001). Median (IQR) increase in our surrogate measure of longitudinal MD variability in the second eye tested was 3% (-43%, 50%); this effect was not associated with patient age or rest time between examinations.

conclusionStatistically significant perimetric fatigue effects manifest on average in the second eye tested in routine clinics using Humphrey Field Analyzer SITA examinations. However, the average effects were very small and there was enormous variation among patients. We recommend starting with a right eye examination so that any perimetric fatigue effects, if they exist in an individual, will be as constant as possible from visit to visit.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsVisual FieldsVisual Field Testsfatigueglaucomaperimetryvisual fields

Identifiers

PMID30801992
PMCPMC6767463
OpenAlexW2917373400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.