Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34376968›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Temporal Visual Field Border.

Jan Lestak, Tomas Lestak, Martin Fus, Iva Klimesova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jan LestakFaculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-9630-3441
Tomas LestakFaculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Martin FusFaculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Iva KlimesovaFaculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to determine the physiological temporal visual field border, based on theoretical calculations and by perimetric examination itself. MATERIALS AND

methodsA perimetry test was performed on 15 healthy subjects - seven women (27-30 years old) and eight men (28-46 years old), all of whom had healthy eyes with a visual acuity value of 1.0. The visual field was evaluated using a Medmont M700 with nasal displacement of the fixation point of 40 degrees. In total, 179 examined points of visual field were included. The model of the entry of temporal rays into the eye was created on the basis of the measured biometric values of the eye and with the help of the AD systems AutoCad and SolidWorks. RayViz for SolidWorks was able to simulate the passage of light rays through the model.

resultsThe temporal part of the subjective visual field border was up to 110 degrees in all eyes. Modelling of the input rays based on geometric optics in one of the participants in the testing revealed a theoretical temporal boundary of the visual field of 102 degrees.

conclusionTheoretical calculations of geometric optics have shown that the temporal boundary of the visual field reaches up to 102 degrees in a healthy individual. By perimetric examination, this limit reached 110 degrees.

Indexed as

optimal eye parametersperimetrytemporal visual field bordervisual field

Identifiers

PMID34376968
PMCPMC8349196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.