ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Reasons why OCT Global Circumpapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness is a Poor Measure of Glaucomatous Progression.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined Probability Test for Sectoral Progression of the Circumpapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- A Pattern-Based OCT Metric for Glaucoma Detection.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Progression of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Rationale and Development of an OCT-Based Method for Detection of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy.Journal of glaucoma · 2022Article
- Detection of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Did the OCT Show Progression Since the Last Visit?Journal of glaucoma · 2021Article
- Comparison of Ganglion Cell Layer and Ganglion Cell/Inner Plexiform Layer Measures for Detection of Early Glaucoma.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the effects of local defects, segmentation errors, and improper image alignment on the performance of the commonly used optical coherence tomography (OCT) measure of progression, that is the change in global (average) circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) thickness (ΔG). Methods: One hundred fifty eyes suspected of, or with, early glaucoma had OCT circle and cube scans obtained using eye tracking on two occasions at least 1 year apart. Statistical progression was defined by fixed values of ΔG (3-8 um) and quantile regression. For a reference standard, four authors identified 30 eyes as "likely progressed," and 61 eyes that "likely had not progressed" based on OCT reports from both baseline and follow-up tests. Results: A ΔG criterion of 4 um had the best accuracy: 77%, with 5 false positive (8.2%) and 16 false negative (53%). A post hoc analysis of circular b-scans and OCT probability maps of these eyes indicated that segmentation errors and local progression accounted for most of these mistakes. Segmentation errors, although less common, were also present in true positives and true negatives. Conclusions: Local defects and segmentation errors are the primary reasons for the poor performance of cpRNFL thickness G metric. Because these problems are difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate, the G metric should not be relied on in isolation for detecting glaucomatous progression. Translational Relevance: Local defects and segmentation errors are easily identified by viewing OCT circumpapillary images, which should be part of the standard protocol for detecting glaucomatous progression.
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.