Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32672674›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Performance of the Rule of 5 for Detecting Glaucoma Progression between Visits with OCT.

Atalie C Thompson, Alessandro A Jammal, Felipe A Medeiros

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Atalie C ThompsonVision, Imaging and Performance (VIP) Laboratory, Duke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Alessandro A JammalVision, Imaging and Performance (VIP) Laboratory, Duke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Felipe A MedeirosVision, Imaging and Performance (VIP) Laboratory, Duke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: felipe.medeiros@duke.edu.
Duke University · US

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 ASRANI, SANJAY, MEDEIROS, FELIPE · 2019 to 2022
$2.2M
The nGoggle: A portable brain-based device for assessment of visual function deficitsR42EY027651 · NEI · NGOGGLE, INC. · PI MEDEIROS, FELIPE, TSENG, HENRY · 2018 to 2019
$1.7M
Development of a Portable Objective Method for Assessment of Visual Field LossR21EY025056 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI JUNG, TZYY-PING, MEDEIROS, FELIPE · 2015 to 2016
$422k
Regulatory Assistance for nGoggle Device for Ophthalmic IndicationsR43EY027651 · NEI · NGOGGLE, INC. · PI ZAO, JOHN KAR-KIN · 2017 to 2017
$262k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021818NEI NIH HHS R01 EY029885NEI NIH HHS R21 EY025056NEI NIH HHS R42 EY027651NEI NIH HHS R43 EY027651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate whether loss of 5 μm or more in global retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness on spectral-domain (SD) between 2 consecutive visits is specific for glaucoma progression.

designProspective cohort.

participantsNinety-two eyes of 49 control participants and 300 eyes of 210 glaucoma patients.

methodsPatients completed at least 5 standard automated perimetry and SD OCT examinations at 6-month intervals over at least 2 years. Eyes were categorized as progressing from glaucoma if the average RNFL declined by 5 μm or more between 2 consecutive visits. The false-positive proportion was estimated by 2 methods: (1) 5-μm or more loss in control participants and (2) 5-μm or more gain in glaucoma. The false-positive proportion was subtracted from the cumulative proportion of eyes categorized with glaucoma progression to estimate the true progression prevalence.

main outcome measuresFalse-positive and true progression prevalence of patients with glaucoma detected as progressing on SD OCT.

resultsAfter 5 years of semiannual testing, the cumulative proportion of false-positive results based on 5-μm or more RNFL losses between visits was 24.8% in the control participants. Although 40.6% of glaucoma eyes were diagnosed with progression at 5 years, only 15.8% would have been considered to show true progression based on the expected false-positive ratio from the control participants (i.e., 40.6%-24.8%). The cumulative proportion of an intervisit gain of 5 μm or more at 5 years was 27.4% in glaucoma eyes, suggesting that only 13.2% of eyes with glaucoma truly had progressed (i.e., 40.6%-27.4%).

conclusionsLoss of 5 μm or more in average RNFL thickness between consecutive SD OCT tests is not specific for glaucoma progression. Application of this intervisit rule of 5 can result in a high cumulative proportion of false-positive results over time, which could lead to unnecessary interventions in patients whose disease is stable. More specific diagnostic criteria are needed to help clinicians determine whether patients with glaucoma are progressing so that therapy escalation is both timely and appropriate.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdultAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedNerve FibersOptic DiskProspective StudiesRetinal Ganglion CellsTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID32672674
PMCPMC7375168
OpenAlexW2947069606

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.