Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32555198›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Using eye movements to detect visual field loss: a pragmatic assessment using simulated scotoma.

Daniel S Asfaw, Pete R Jones, Laura A Edwards, Nicholas D Smith, David P Crabb

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel S AsfawDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4841-167X
Pete R JonesDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7672-8397
Laura A EdwardsDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Nicholas D SmithDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. David.Crabb.1@city.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8754-3902
City, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible sight-loss and has been shown to affect natural eye-movements. These changes may provide a cheap and easy-to-obtain biomarker for improving disease detection. Here, we investigated whether these changes are large enough to be clinically useful. We used a gaze-contingent simulated visual field (VF) loss paradigm, in which participants experienced a variable magnitude of simulated VF loss based on longitudinal data from a real glaucoma patient (thereby controlling for other variables, such as age and general health). Fifty-five young participants with healthy vision were asked to view two short videos and three pictures, either with: (1) no VF loss, (2) moderate VF loss, or (3) advanced VF loss. Eye-movements were recorded using a remote eye tracker. Key eye-movement parameters were computed, including saccade amplitude, the spread of saccade endpoints (bivariate contour ellipse area), location of saccade landing positions, and similarity of fixations locations among participants (quantified using kernel density estimation). The simulated VF loss caused some statistically significant effects in the eye movement parameters. Yet, these effects were not capable of consistently identifying simulated VF loss, despite it being of a magnitude likely easily detectable by standard automated perimetry.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsVisual FieldsBiomarkersComputer SimulationGlaucomaHumansModels, BiologicalSaccadesScotomaSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID32555198
PMCPMC7299979
OpenAlexW3036136615

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.