ArticleScientific reports2021
Improved sensitivity of microperimetric outcomes for clinical studies in age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mesopic microperimetry in Stargardt disease: Application and reliability.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Trial
- Abnormal Ipsilesional Hemifields and Improvement Post-Biofeedback Training in Patients with Hemianopia Measured with the MAIA Microperimeter.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Test-Retest Variability and Discriminatory Power of Measurements From Microperimetry and Dark Adaptation Assessment in People With Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration - A MACUSTAR Study Report.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate sensitive outcome measures based exclusively on abnormal points in microperimetry testing of eyes with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). 25 eyes of 25 subjects with iAMD had undergone 2 successive tests of mesopic microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment Microperimeter (MAIA), using a custom grid of 33 points spanning the central 14 degrees of the macula. Each point was defined as abnormal if its threshold sensitivity was lower than 1.65 standard deviations (SD) (5%) or 2 SD (2.5%) than the expected threshold in healthy eyes according to the MAIA internal database. Among the 25 eyes there were 11.8 ± 9 and 8.4 ± 8.2 abnormal points at < 5% and < 2.5%, with mean deviation of thresholds from normal - 4.9 ± 1.2 dB and - 5.8 ± 1.5 dB, respectively. These deviations were greater, and their SD smaller, compared with the complete microperimetry grid, - 2.3 ± 2.0 dB. The 95% limits of agreement for average threshold between the 2 successive tests were smaller when only abnormal points were included. Analyzing only abnormal grid points yields an outcome parameter with a greater deviation from normal, a more homogenous dataset, and better test-retest variability, compared with analysis of all grid points. This parameter may thus be more sensitive to change, while moderately limiting the number of potential recruits. The proposed outcome measures should be further investigated as potential endpoints in clinical trials in iAMD.
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.