Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32348798›Full record

ReviewSurvey of ophthalmology

Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Rongrong Hu, Lyne Racette, Kelly S Chen, Chris A Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Survey of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. ISCEV and IPS guideline for the full-field stimulus test (FST).Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Home monitoring devices for glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. [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
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A multi-label transformer-based deep learning approach to predict focal visual field progression.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  19. Frontloading visual field tests detect earlier mean deviation progression when applied to real-world-derived early-stage glaucoma data.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Rongrong HuDepartment of Ophthalmology, First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Lyne RacetteDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. Electronic address: lracette@uabmc.edu.
Kelly S ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Chris A JohnsonDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

Funding

UAB Short-Term Research Training in Health Professional Schools (SHRT)T35HL007473 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI WILLIAM M GEISLER · 1985 to 2026
$4.0M
Early detection of glaucoma progression using a novel individualized approachR01EY025756 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI RACETTE, LYNE · 2016 to 2021
$1.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025756NHLBI NIH HHS T35 HL007473
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians who manage glaucoma patients carefully monitor the visual field to determine if treatments are effective or interventions are needed. Visual field tests may reflect disease progression or variability among examinations. We describe the approaches and perimetric tests used to evaluate glaucomatous visual field progression and factors that are important for identifying progression. These include stimulus size, which area of the visual field to assess (central versus peripheral), and the testing frequency, evaluating which is important to detect change early while minimizing patient testing burden. We also review the different statistical methods developed to identify change. These include trend- and event-based analyses, parametric and nonparametric tests, population-based versus individualized approaches, as well as pointwise and global analyses. We hope this information will prove useful and important to enhance the management of glaucoma patients. Overall, analysis procedures based on series of at least 5 to 6 examinations that require confirmation and persistence of changes, that are guided by the pattern and shape of the glaucomatous visual field deficits, and that are consistent with structural defects provide the best clinical performance.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionGlaucomaHumansVisual FieldsVisual Field Testsanalysis methodsclinical considerationsglaucomaperimetric testsvisual field progression

Identifiers

PMID32348798
PMCPMC7423736

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.