Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32496526›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2020

Evaluation of a Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Prediction Model Using Long-term Intraocular Pressure Variability Data: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Mae O Gordon, Feng Gao, Julia Beiser Huecker, J Philip Miller, Mathew Margolis, Michael A Kass, Stefano Miglior, Valter Torri, European Glaucoma Prevention Study and the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Deep learning models to predict primary open-angle glaucoma.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Incorrect Spelling in Author Byline.JAMA ophthalmology · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mae O GordonDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Feng GaoDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Julia Beiser HueckerDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
J Philip MillerDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Mathew MargolisDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Michael A KassDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Stefano MigliorPoliclinico di Monza University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Valter TorriDepartment of Oncology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri," Milan, Italy.
European Glaucoma Prevention Study and the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study
Washington University in St. Louis · USMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study 20-Year Follow-up: Coordinating Center GrantUG1EY025182 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GORDON, MAE O · 2015 to 2019
$4.9M
Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study 20-Year Follow-up: Resource Center GrantUG1EY025183 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KASS, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2019
$4.0M
Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study 20-Year Follow-up: Clinical Center GrantUG1EY025181 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GORDON, MAE O · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study 20-Year Follow-up: Chairman's GrantUG1EY025180 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KASS, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2019
$2.2M
NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY025180NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY025181NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY025182NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY025183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The contribution of long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) variability to the development of primary open-angle glaucoma is still controversial. Objective: To assess whether long-term IOP variability data improve a prediction model for the development of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in individuals with untreated ocular hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials included data from 709 of 819 participants in the observation group of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) followed up from February 28, 1994, to June 1, 2002, and 397 of 500 participants in the placebo group of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) followed up from January 1, 1997, to September 30, 2003. Data analyses were completed between January 1, 2019, and March 15, 2020. Exposures: The original prediction model for the development of POAG included the following baseline factors: age, IOP, central corneal thickness, vertical cup-disc ratio, and pattern SD. This analysis tested whether substitution of baseline IOP with mean follow-up IOP, SD of IOP, maximum IOP, range of IOP, or coefficient of variation IOP would improve predictive accuracy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The C statistic was used to compare the predictive accuracy of multivariable landmark Cox proportional hazards regression models for the development of POAG. Results: Data from the OHTS consisted of 97 POAG end points from 709 of 819 participants (416 [58.7%] women; 177 [25.0%] African American and 490 [69.1%] white; mean [SD] age, 55.7 [9.59] years; median [range] follow-up, 6.9 [0.96-8.15] years). Data from the EGPS consisted of 44 POAG end points from 397 of 500 participants in the placebo group (201 [50.1%] women; 397 [100%] white; mean [SD] age, 57.8 [9.76] years; median [range] follow-up, 4.9 [1.45-5.76] years). The C statistic for the original prediction model was 0.741. When a measure of follow-up IOP was substituted for baseline IOP in this prediction model, the C statistics were as follows: mean follow-up IOP, 0.784; maximum IOP, 0.781; SD of IOP, 0.745; range of IOP, 0.741; and coefficient of variation IOP, 0.729. The C statistics in the EGPS were similarly ordered. No measure of IOP variability, when added to the prediction model that included mean follow-up IOP, age, central corneal thickness, vertical cup-disc ratio, and pattern SD, increased the C statistic by more than 0.007 in either cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from the OHTS and the EGPS suggests that long-term variability does not add substantial explanatory power to the prediction model as to which individuals with untreated ocular hypertension will develop POAG.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsCorneaGlaucoma, Open-AngleIntraocular PressureOptic DiskDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsVisual FieldsAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID32496526
PMCPMC7273317
OpenAlexW3031302593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.