Observational studyThe British journal of ophthalmology2022
Longitudinal visual field variability and the ability to detect glaucoma progression in black and white individuals.
Observational study in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glaucoma Progression Detection Time Using OCT and OCTA in African and European Descendants.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Functional generalized estimating equation model to detect glaucomatous visual field progression.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Retinal Image Translation to Improve Glaucoma Screening With Deep Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Impact of race and ethnicity on glaucoma progression detection by perimetry and optical coherence tomography.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Glaucoma Progression Detection by Perimetry and Optical Coherence Tomography.Research square · 2024Article
- Impact of Social Vulnerability Index on the Development of Severe Visual Impairment or Blindness From Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A Novel Approach To Predict Glaucomatous Impairment in the Central 10° Visual Field, Excluding the Effect of Cataract.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Impact of Demographics on Regional Visual Field Loss and Deterioration in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Disparities in Visual Field Testing Frequency Among Subjects With Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Time to Glaucoma Progression Detection by Optical Coherence Tomography in Individuals of African and European Descents.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Social determinants of health and health disparities in glaucoma: A review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Going beyond the means: Exploring the role of bias from digital determinants of health in technologies.PLOS digital health · 2023Review
- Systematic User-centered Design of a Prototype Clinical Decision Support System for Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Rates of Glaucoma Progression Derived from Linear Mixed Models Using Varied Random Effect Distributions.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- The Frequency of Visual Field Testing in a US Nationwide Cohort of Individuals with Open-Angle Glaucoma.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Big data for imaging assessment in glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Social Factors Associated with the Risk of Glaucoma Suspect Conversion to Glaucoma: Analysis of the Nationwide All of Us Program.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- The Impact of Social Vulnerability on Structural and Functional Glaucoma Severity, Worsening, and Variability.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
- Assessment of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of a Novel Test for Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry.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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo investigate racial differences in the variability of longitudinal visual field testing in a 'real-world' clinical population, evaluate how these differences are influenced by socioeconomic status, and estimate the impact of differences in variability on the time to detect visual field progression.
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study used data from 1103 eyes from 751 White individuals and 428 eyes from 317 black individuals. Linear regression was performed on the standard automated perimetry mean deviation values for each eye over time. The SD of the residuals from the trend lines was calculated and used as a measure of variability for each eye. The association of race with the SD of the residuals was evaluated using a multivariable generalised estimating equation model with an interaction between race and zip code income. Computer simulations were used to estimate the time to detect visual field progression in the two racial groups.
resultsBlack patients had larger visual field variability over time compared with white patients, even when adjusting for zip code level socioeconomic variables (SD of residuals for Black patients=1.53 dB (95% CI 1.43 to 1.64); for white patients=1.26 dB (95% CI 1.14 to 1.22); mean difference: 0.28 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.41); p<0.001). The difference in visual field variability between black and white patients was greater at lower levels of income and led to a delay in detection of glaucoma progression.
conclusionBlack patients had larger visual field variability compared with white patients. This relationship was strongly influenced by socioeconomic status and may partially explain racial disparities in glaucoma outcomes.
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.