ArticleJournal of glaucoma2021
Did the OCT Show Progression Since the Last Visit?
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2021. 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.
- Progression of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- The 24-2 Visual Field Guided Progression Analysis Can Miss the Progression of Glaucomatous Damage of the Macula Seen Using OCT.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying progression is of fundamental importance to the management of glaucoma. It is also a challenge. The most sophisticated, and probably the most useful, commercially available clinical tool for identifying progression is the Guided Progression Analysis (GPA), which was initially developed to identify progression using 24-2 visual field tests. More recently, it has been extended to retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer thicknesses measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT). However, the OCT GPA requires a minimum of 3 tests to determine "possible loss (progression)" and a minimum of 4 tests to determine if the patient shows "likely loss (progression)." Thus, it is not designed to answer a fundamental question asked by both the clinician and the patient, namely: Did damage progress since the last visit? Some clinicians use changes in summary statistics, such as global/average circumpapillary RNFL thickness. However, these statistics have poor sensitivity and specificity due to segmentation and alignment errors. Instead of relying on the GPA analysis or summary statistics, one needs to evaluate RNFL and ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer probability maps and circumpapillary OCT B-scan images. In addition, we argue that the clinician can make a better decision about suspected progression between 2 test days by topographically comparing the changes in the different OCT maps and images, in addition to topographically comparing the changes in the visual field with the changes in OCT probability maps.
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.