ArticleJournal of glaucoma2020
Three-dimensional Neuroretinal Rim Thickness and Visual Fields in Glaucoma: A Broken-stick Model.
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sectoral Analysis of Corneal Thickness in Glaucoma and Healthy Eyes and Its Relationship with RNFL and Rim Area.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Frequency of Agreement Between Structural and Functional Glaucoma Testing: A Longitudinal Study of 3D OCT and Current Clinical Tests.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- LIMBARE: An Advanced Linear Mixed-Effects Breakpoint Analysis With Robust Estimation Method With Applications to Longitudinal Ophthalmic Studies.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Detecting disease progression in mild, moderate and severe glaucoma.Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
precisIn open-angle glaucoma, when neuroretinal rim tissue measured by volumetric optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans is below a third of the normal value, visual field (VF) damage becomes detectable. PURPOSE: To determine the amount of neuroretinal rim tissue thickness below which VF damage becomes detectable.
methodsIn a retrospective cross-sectional study, 1 eye per subject (of 57 healthy and 100 open-angle glaucoma patients) at an academic institution had eye examinations, VF testing, spectral-domain OCT retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurements, and optic nerve volumetric scans. Using custom algorithms, the minimum distance band (MDB) neuroretinal rim thickness was calculated from optic nerve scans. "Broken-stick" regression was performed for estimating both the MDB and RNFL thickness tipping-point thresholds, below which were associated with initial VF defects in the decibel scale. The slopes for the structure-function relationship above and below the thresholds were computed. Smoothing curves of the MDB and RNFL thickness covariates were evaluated to examine the consistency of the independently identified tipping-point pairs.
resultsPlots of VF total deviation against MDB thickness revealed plateaus of VF total deviation unrelated to MDB thickness. Below the thresholds, VF total deviation decreased with MDB thickness, with the associated slopes significantly greater than those above the thresholds (P<0.014). Below 31% of global MDB thickness, and 36.8% and 43.6% of superior and inferior MDB thickness, VF damage becomes detectable. The MDB and RNFL tipping points were in good accordance with the correlation of the MDB and RNFL thickness covariates.
conclusionsWhen neuroretinal rim tissue, characterized by MDB thickness in OCT, is below a third of the normal value, VF damage in the decibel scale becomes detectable.
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.