Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31555493›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019

Comparison of Methods to Detect and Measure Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression.

Alessandro Rabiolo, Esteban Morales, Lilian Mohamed, Vicente Capistrano, Ji Hyun Kim, Abdelmonem Afifi, Fei Yu, Anne L Coleman, Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi, Joseph Caprioli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Visual field prediction based on temporal-spatial feature learning].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Validating Trend-Based End Points for Neuroprotection Trials in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Alessandro RabioloStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Esteban MoralesStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lilian MohamedStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Vicente CapistranoStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ji Hyun KimStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abdelmonem AfifiDepartment of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Fei YuStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Anne L ColemanStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kouros Nouri-MahdaviStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joseph CaprioliStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare methods to assess visual field (VF) progression in glaucoma.

methods4,950 VFs of 253 primary open angle-glaucoma patients were evaluated for progression with the following methods: clinical evaluation, guided progression analysis (GPA), mean deviation (MD), and visual field index (VFI) rates, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) and Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS) scores, pointwise linear regression (PLR), permutation of PLR (PoPLR), and glaucoma rate index (GRI). A separate simulated series of longitudinal VFs was assessed with all methods except for GPA and clinical evaluation.

resultsThe average (±SD) age of the patients at baseline was 65.4 (±11.5) years. The average (±SD) follow-up was 11.8 (±4.6) years, and the mean (±SD) number of VFs was 16.8 (±7.0). Proportion of series detected as progressing was 65% for PoPLR, 58% for GRI, 41% for GPA, 40% for PLR, 36% for CIGTS, 35% for clinicians, 31% for MD rate, 29% for AGIS, and 22% for VFI rate. Median times to detection of progression were 7.3 years for PoPLR, 7.5 years for GRI, 11 years for clinicians, 14 years for GPA, 16 years for PLR, 17 years for CIGTS, 19 years for AGIS, and more than 20 years for MD and VFI rates. In simulated VF series, GRI had the highest partial area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (0.040) to distinguish between glaucoma progression and aging/cataract decay, followed by VFI rate (0.028), MD rate (0.024), and PoPLR (0.006).

conclusionsGRI and PoPLR showed the highest proportion of series detected as progressing and shortest times to progression detection. GRI exhibited the best ability to detect progression in the simulated VF series. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of the properties of every method would allow tailoring application in both clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

Advanced Glaucoma Intervention StudyCollaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Studyglaucoma rate indexguided progression analysismean deviationperimetrypermutation of pointwise linear regressionvisual field ratevisual field simulation

Identifiers

PMID31555493
PMCPMC6748341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.