Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33510957›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021

Effects of Criterion Bias on Perimetric Sensitivity and Response Variability in Glaucoma.

Nikki J Rubinstein, Andrew Turpin, Jonathan Denniss, Allison M McKendrick

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Frequency-of-seeing curves (psychometric functions) for perimetric stimuli in age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Long- and Short-Term Variability of Perimetry in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nikki J RubinsteinDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew TurpinSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jonathan DennissSchool of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Allison M McKendrickDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUAustralian College of Optometry · AUUniversity of Bradford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to isolate and quantify the effects of observer response criterion on perimetric sensitivity, response variability, and maximum response probability. Methods: Twelve people with glaucoma were tested at three locations in the visual field (age = 47-77 years, mean deviation = -0.61 to -14.54 dB, test location Humphrey field analyzer [HFA] sensitivities = 1 to 30 dB). Frequency of seeing (FoS) curves were measured using a method of constant stimuli with two response paradigms: a "yes-no" paradigm similar to static automated perimetry and a criterion-free two interval forced choice (2IFC) paradigm. Comparison measures of sensitivity, maximum response probability, and response variability were derived from the fitted FoS curves. Results: Sensitivity differences between the tasks varied widely (range = -11.3 dB to 21.6 dB) and did not correlate with visual field sensitivity nor whether the visual field location was in an area of steep sensitivity gradient within the visual field. Due to the wide variation in differences between the methods, there was no significant difference in mean sensitivity between the 2IFC task relative to the yes-no task, but a trend for higher sensitivity (mean = 1.9 dB, SD = 6.0 dB, Conclusions: Perimetric sensitivity estimates are demonstrably altered by observer response criterion but the effect varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test. Response bias should be considered a factor in perimetric test variability and when comparing sensitivities to nonperimetric data. Translational Relevance: The effect of response criterion on perimetric response variability varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual Field TestsAgedBiasFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsVisual FieldsbiascriterionglaucomaPerimetryvariabilityvisual field

Identifiers

PMID33510957
PMCPMC7804569
OpenAlexW3118409333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.