ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Functional evaluation of the macular area in early glaucoma using microperimetry.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-to-Point Macular Structure-Function Relationships in Healthy and Glaucomatous Eyes Using OCT and Microperimetry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Macular function measured by Nidek MP-3 microperimeter in normal Chinese individuals across age groups.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Pericentral Scotometry Guided by Standard Perimetry Using Microperimetry in Glaucoma Patients.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the central visual field by microperimetry (MP), in early glaucoma. Methods: Consecutive perimetrically experienced patients with a single nasal step or arcuate scotoma and 14 control eyes underwent MP. Retinal sensitivity on MP was mapped for frequency and depth of loss in the central 10° around fixation. Results: Twenty-one eyes had a single nasal step and 19 eyes with single arcuate scotoma on standard automated perimetry (SAP), with central 10° being normal on 30-2 and 10-2 perimetry. The average mean sensitivity on MP, in glaucomatous and control eyes was 11.8 ± 3.9 dB and 16.6 ± 1.2 dB, respectively, P = 0.0004. The average mean defect on MP-1, in glaucomatous and control eyes was -6.5 ± 2.0 dB and -3.0 ± 1.2 Db, respectively, P = 0.05. The corresponding retinal hemisphere showed significant defects in MP. In eyes with single nasal steps, an absolute scotoma was seen in 14-28% of eyes 8-10° off fixation, moderate to mild defects were seen in 10-52% eyes, and 10% eyes showed involvement up to 4° from the fixation. Eyes with arcuate scotoma had an absolute scotoma on MP in 95% of eyes, 6-10° from fixation, with extension up to 2° from fixation in 21%. In glaucomatous eyes, the normal hemisphere on SAP showed a mild defect on MP in 43%. Control eyes did not show any defect in SAP or MP. Conclusion: A significant loss of central retinal sensitivity is recorded on MP in early glaucomatous neuropathy as compared to SAP. Paramacular absolute defects were seen at 6-10° from fixation.
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.