ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Improvements in Test-Retest Variability of Static Automated Perimetry by Censoring Results With Low Sensitivity in Retinitis Pigmentosa.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Test-retest variability of mesopic microperimetry-associated parameters in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: REPEAT Study Report No. 2.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Relating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed With Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss Due to Glaucoma and NAION.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Overcoming the Challenges to Clinical Development of X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa Therapies: Proceedings of an Expert Panel.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Longitudinal Signal-to-Noise Ratio of Perimetry at Different Severities of Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Characterizing Visual Fields in RPGR Related Retinitis Pigmentosa Using Octopus Static-Automated Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Calculation of test-retest variability in phase I/IIa clinical trials for Inherited Retinal Degenerations.Ophthalmic genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated whether omitting (censoring) points in more severely damaged visual field areas can reduce test-retest variability of static automated perimetry (SAP) in retinitis pigmentosa (RP), as variability creates a significant challenge when monitoring for changes. Methods: Cohort 1 included 27 eyes in 16 RP subjects with visual acuity (VA) ranging from 20/20 to 20/70 who completed Humphrey 10-2 size III SAP, once per visit at three visits. Cohort 2 included 15 eyes in nine RP subjects with VA ≤ 20/60 who completed Humphrey 30-2 size V SAP, twice per visit at three visits. Variability was assessed using 95% coefficient of repeatability (CR) calculations for uncensored (all threshold values and data points included) and censored data. Results: In cohort 1, the uncensored between-visit 95% CR was 11.6 decibels (dB); censoring locations with threshold values of <8 to 20 dB resulted in 31% to 53% reductions in the 95% CR. For cohort 2, uncensored 95% CRs were 8.7 and 8.0 dB for within- and between-visit variability, respectively; censoring <8 to 17 dB resulted in 15% to 41% and 15% to 43% reductions in within-visit and between-visit 95% CRs, respectively. For both cohorts, censoring at higher values yielded slightly less variability, at the expense of discarding data from a greater number of eyes and test locations. Conclusions: For 20/20 to 20/70 VA tested with size III stimuli, censoring lower sensitivity values results in substantially lower test-retest variability, which may help detect true changes for locations without severe baseline loss. Translational Relevance: A rule of thumb for clinical practices using SAP to monitor RP is that longitudinal losses of >9 dB for individual test locations with initial values ≥ 9 dB are likely to be real and meaningful, as they exceed typical variability.
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.