Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32632403›Full record

Observational studyOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Improving the Feasibility of Glaucoma Clinical Trials Using Trend-Based Visual Field Progression Endpoints.

Zhichao Wu, David P Crabb, Balwantray C Chauhan, Jonathan G Crowston, Felipe A Medeiros

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial Intelligence for Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Validating Trend-Based End Points for Neuroprotection Trials in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Hierarchical Censored Bayesian Analysis of Visual Field Progression.Translational vision science & technology · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Zhichao WuDuke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, United Kingdom.
Balwantray C ChauhanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jonathan G CrowstonCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Felipe A MedeirosDuke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Centre for Eye Research Australia · AUCity, University of London · GBDalhousie University · CAUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS): Functional ImpairmentR01EY021818 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI MEDEIROS, FELIPE · 2011 to 2015
$3.4M
The BCI (Brain Computer Interface) Glaucoma Study: Objective Home-Based Detection of Progressive Visual Function Loss in GlaucomaR01EY029885 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MEDEIROS, FELIPE · 2019 to 2022
$2.2M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021818NEI NIH HHS R01 EY029885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: There have been concerns that short-term clinical trials for evaluating new treatments in glaucoma would require prohibitively large sample sizes when using visual field endpoints, given that glaucoma is often a slowly progressive disease. This study sought to determine the required sample size for such trials using event-based analyses, and whether it can be reduced using trend-based analyses. Design: Longitudinal, observational study. Participants: 321 eyes of 240 glaucoma participants followed under routine clinical care using 242 visual field for an average of 10 years. Methods: Sample size requirements were derived using computer simulations that reconstructed "real-world" visual fields by combining estimates of point-wise variability according to different threshold levels and rates of change obtained from the clinical glaucoma cohort. A clinical trial lasting 2 years with testing every 3 months was simulated, assuming that the new treatment halted visual field change in various percentages of participants (or "responders"). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by: (a) Difference in incidence of point-wise event-based progression (similar to the commercially available Guided Progression Analysis), and (b) Difference in rate of visual field mean deviation (MD) change between groups using linear mixed models (LMMs). Main Outcome Measures: Sample size to detect a statistically significance difference between groups. Results: Between-group trend-based analyses using LMMs reduced sample size requirements by 85-90% across the range of new treatment effects when compared to the conventional point-wise event-based analysis. To detect the effect of a new treatment that halted progression in 30% of the participants under routine clinical care (equal to a 30% reduction in average rate of MD change) with 90% power, for example, 1924 participants would be required per group using event-based analysis, but only 277 participants per group if LMMs were used. Conclusions: The feasibility of future glaucoma clinical trials can be substantially improved by evaluating differences in the rate of visual field change between groups.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual FieldsFeasibility StudiesHumansSample SizeVisual Field Testsclinical trialsglaucomasample sizeVisual fields

Identifiers

PMID32632403
PMCPMC7337274
OpenAlexW2910439267

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.