Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32864194›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020

Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce.

Lauren N Ayton, Joseph F Rizzo, Ian L Bailey, August Colenbrander, Gislin Dagnelie, Duane R Geruschat, Philip C Hessburg, Chris D McCarthy, Matthew A Petoe, Gary S Rubin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ISCEV and IPS guideline for the full-field stimulus test (FST).Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Clinical endpoints special session, ISCEV 2025, Utrecht.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The role of full-field stimulus threshold in evaluating Bietti crystalline dystrophy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. [Importance of vision in old age].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Lauren N AytonDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences and Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Joseph F RizzoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ian L BaileySchool of Optometry, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
August ColenbranderSmith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute and California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gislin DagnelieLions Vision Research and Rehabilitation Center, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Duane R GeruschatLions Vision Research and Rehabilitation Center, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Philip C HessburgDetroit Institute of Ophthalmology, Henry Ford Health System, Grosse Pointe Park, MI, USA.
Chris D McCarthyDepartment of Computer Science & Software Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthew A PetoeBionics Institute of Australia, East Melbourne, Australia.
Gary S RubinUniversity College London Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Philip R TroykArmour College of Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA.
HOVER International Taskforce
Johns Hopkins University · USAustralian College of Optometry · AUBionics Institute · AUHenry Ford Health System · USIllinois Institute of Technology · USMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USSmith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · USSwinburne University of Technology · AUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Translational research in vision prosthetics, gene therapy, optogenetics, stem cell and other forms of transplantation, and sensory substitution is creating new therapeutic options for patients with neural forms of blindness. The technical challenges faced by each of these disciplines differ considerably, but they all face the same challenge of how to assess vision in patients with ultra-low vision (ULV), who will be the earliest subjects to receive new therapies. Historically, there were few tests to assess vision in ULV patients. In the 1990s, the field of visual prosthetics expanded rapidly, and this activity led to a heightened need to develop better tests to quantify end points for clinical studies. Each group tended to develop novel tests, which made it difficult to compare outcomes across groups. The common lack of validation of the tests and the variable use of controls added to the challenge of interpreting the outcomes of these clinical studies. In 2014, at the bi-annual International "Eye and the Chip" meeting of experts in the field of visual prosthetics, a group of interested leaders agreed to work cooperatively to develop the International Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials (HOVER) Taskforce. Under this banner, more than 80 specialists across seven topic areas joined an effort to formulate guidelines for performing and reporting psychophysical tests in humans who participate in clinical trials for visual restoration. This document provides the complete version of the consensus opinions from the HOVER taskforce, which, together with its rules of governance, will be posted on the website of the Henry Ford Department of Ophthalmology (www.artificialvision.org). Research groups or companies that choose to follow these guidelines are encouraged to include a specific statement to that effect in their communications to the public. The Executive Committee of the HOVER Taskforce will maintain a list of all human psychophysical research in the relevant fields of research on the same website to provide an overview of methods and outcomes of all clinical work being performed in an attempt to restore vision to the blind. This website will also specify which scientific publications contain the statement of certification. The website will be updated every 2 years and continue to exist as a living document of worldwide efforts to restore vision to the blind. The HOVER consensus document has been written by over 80 of the world's experts in vision restoration and low vision and provides recommendations on the measurement and reporting of patient outcomes in vision restoration trials.

Indexed as

Vision, OcularVisual ProsthesisBlindnessConsensusHumansVision Disordersclinical endpointsvision outcomesvision restoration

Identifiers

PMID32864194
PMCPMC7426586
OpenAlexW3043005701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.