ArticleScientific reports2020
Validation of a novel functional test for assessing metamorphopsia using epiretinal membranes as a model.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of visual field defects from macular optical coherence tomography in glaucoma using cluster analysis.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Measuring image distortions arising from age-related macular degeneration: An Iterative Amsler Grid (IAG).MedComm · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current tests for assessing metamorphopsia do not account for confounders such as perceptual filling-in and spatial redundancy, which affect its sensitivity and repeatability. This proof-of-concept study aimed to assess the performance of a novel laboratory-based psychophysical test (Line Sag Test, LST) which addresses these issues for quantification of metamorphopsia in idiopathic epiretinal membranes. The LST quantifies perpendicular metamorphopsia at three eccentricities (3°, 6°, and 9°) along eight meridians (45° steps). Metamorphopsia was assessed using the LST and Amsler grid and the hit rates of both tests for detecting metamorphopsia were compared. Normal metamorphopsia scores using the LST did not differ significantly from 0 and fell within one step-size (p = 0.500). The LST detected significantly more cases of metamorphopsia than the Amsler grid (14/21 versus 3/21) (p = 0.003). Similarly, significantly more cases of visual distortions in asymptomatic iERMs were detected using the LST than the Amsler grid (11/18 versus 0/18) (p = 0.008). The LST has a higher hit rate compared to the Amsler grid (67% versus 14%). This work demonstrates a psychophysically-robust functional test addressing perceptual confounders is more sensitive for quantifying and localising metamorphopsia in macular disease, particularly in asymptomatic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.