Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32693049›Full record

Observational studyOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Comparison of Peripapillary Capillary Density in Glaucoma Patients of African and European Descent.

Sasan Moghimi, Linda M Zangwill, Huiyuan Hou, Brandon Wong, James Proudfoot, Rafaella C Penteado, Eren Ekici, Christopher Bowd, Robert N Weinreb

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Ocular blood flow as it relates to race and disease on glaucoma.Advances in ophthalmology and optometry · 2021
    Article
  8. Observational
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sasan MoghimiHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Linda M ZangwillHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Huiyuan HouHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Brandon WongHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; USC Roski Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
James ProudfootHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Rafaella C PenteadoHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Department of Ophthalmology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eren EkiciHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara Ulucanlar Eye Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Christopher BowdHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Robert N WeinrebHamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: rweinreb@ucsd.edu.
University of California San Diego · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

African Descent And Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES)U10EY014267 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 2002 to 2010
$13.2M
Vision BiostatisticsP30EY022589 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LINDA M ZANGWILL · 2012 to 2026
$10.3M
Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma:Structural AssessmentR01EY011008 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 1995 to 2015
$8.7M
Diagnosis and Monitoring of Glaucoma with Optical Coherence Tomography AngiographyR01EY029058 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI WEINREB, ROBERT N · 2018 to 2024
$4.2M
African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation (ADAGES) II: Glaucoma ProgressionR01EY019869 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 2010 to 2014
$2.8M
Machine Learning Methods for Detecting Disease-related Functional and Structural Change in GlaucomaR21EY027945 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BOWD, CHRISTOPHER · 2017 to 2018
$426k
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY022589NEI NIH HHS R01 EY011008NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019869NEI NIH HHS R01 EY029058NEI NIH HHS R21 EY027945NEI NIH HHS U10 EY014267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate racial differences in optic nerve head peripapillary capillary density measured by OCT angiography (OCTA) in patients with open-angle glaucoma.

designObservational, cross-sectional study.

participantsTwo hundred eighty-four eyes of 195 glaucoma patients and 108 eyes of 58 healthy participants from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study.

methodsGlobal and sectoral circumpapillary capillary density (cpCD) loss in participants of European descent (ED) and African descent (AD) were compared. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of cpCD and global circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) thickness in the 2 groups after adjusting for confounders.

main outcome measuresPeripapillary capillary density and cpRNFL thickness measurements and their estimated loss.

resultsParticipants of AD and ED with glaucoma were of similar age and glaucoma severity. After adjusting for age, disc area, and other confounders, significantly lower cpCD was found in ED eyes compared with AD eyes in mild glaucoma (mean, 42.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41.2%-43.2%] and 46.5% [95% CI, 44.8%-48.1%], respectively; adjusted difference, 4.4 [95% CI, 2.6-6.2]; P < 0.001) and moderate to advanced glaucoma (mean, 34.7% and 38.5%, respectively; adjusted difference, 4.8 [95% CI, 1.6-8.1]; P = 0.005). Although capillary density loss was greater in all sectors in ED compared with AD participants, a similar sectoral pattern of density loss was observed in both racial groups. Lower mean deviation and older age were associated with lower cpCD in both races in multivariate models. The adjusted AUROC for discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes for cpCD was higher for ED (0.95) compared with AD (0.68) patients (P < 0.001). Sensitivity at 95% specificity in AD participants was lower than in ED participants for cpCD (0.32 [95% CI, 0.11-0.64] vs. 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.93], respectively; P < 0.001).

conclusionsAlthough peripapillary capillary density parameters showed good diagnostic accuracy for detecting glaucoma in ED patients, their diagnostic accuracy was only modest in AD patients. Diagnostic performance of cpCD is race dependent, and clinicians should be aware that it has poorer performance in AD patients.

Indexed as

GlaucomaGlaucoma, Open-AngleAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIntraocular PressureNerve FibersRetinal Ganglion CellsRetinal VesselsTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual FieldsethnicityglaucomaOCT angiographyretinal nerve fiber layer

Identifiers

PMID32693049
PMCPMC7854768
OpenAlexW3042521575

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.