ArticleScientific reports2021
Improving event-based progression analysis in glaucomatous visual fields.
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 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.
- A Practical Framework for the Integration of Structural Data Into Perimetric Examinations.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- A Bayesian Hierarchical Spatial Longitudinal Model Improves Estimation of Local Macular Rates of Change in Glaucomatous Eyes.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Validating Trend-Based End Points for Neuroprotection Trials in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: Comparison Between PoPLR and ANSWERS.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy with characteristic changes to the optic nerve head and the visual field (VF). Detecting progression of VF damage with Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) is of paramount importance for clinical care. One common approach to detecting progression is to compare each new VF test to a baseline SAP test (event analysis). This comparison is made difficult by the test-retest variability of SAP, which increases with the level of VF damage, and the limited range of measurement, meaning that damage cannot be assessed below a certain level. We performed a prospective international multi-centre data collection of SAP data on 90 eyes from 90 people with glaucoma and different levels of VF damage over a short period of time (6 tests in 60 days). Data were collected using a fundus tracked perimeter (Compass, CenterVue). We used these data (minus the first test) to develop an improved event analysis that accounts for both the change in variability with damage and the lower bound on the measurement imposed by SAP. Using simulations, we show that our approach is more sensitive compared to previously developed methods, especially in the case of advanced glaucoma, while retaining similar specificity.
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.