Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35094226›Full record

ReviewInternational ophthalmology2022

Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma.

Luca Scuderi, Irene Gattazzo, Alessandro de Paula, Clemente Maria Iodice, Federico Di Tizio, Andrea Perdicchi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luca Scuderi *Department of Sense Organs, University Sapienza of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4725-6778
Irene Gattazzo *NESMOS Department, Ophthalmology Unit, St. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0069-0171
Alessandro de PaulaSan Giovanni Addolorata Hospital, Via Santo Stefano Rotondo 6, 00184, Roma, RM, Italy. aledepaula@hotmail.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-4789
Clemente Maria IodiceNESMOS Department, Ophthalmology Unit, St. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1688-6646
Federico Di TizioNESMOS Department, Ophthalmology Unit, St. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Andrea PerdicchiNESMOS Department, Ophthalmology Unit, St. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6776-6199
Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Addolorata · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present narrative review attempts to provide an overview on the use of microperimetry or fundus-driven perimetry in glaucoma, considering the clinical use, the different strategies and limits compared to standard automated perimetry.

methodsAn electronic database (PubMed and Medline) search was performed of articles of any type published in the English language between 1998 and 2020 with a combination of the following terms: microperimetry, glaucoma, primary open-angle chronic glaucoma, visual field, Humphrey visual field, fundus automated perimetry.

resultsAll the original articles, case reports, and short series analyzed were included in the present review, offering an excursus on the strengths and limitations characterizing the use of microperimetry in glaucomatous patients. The characteristics of a recently introduced fundus-driven perimetry Compass (CMP; Centervue, Padua, Italy) were also included.

conclusionAlthough there remain several contradictions regarding routine use of microperimetry and the restricted research on this topic limits our ability to draw firm conclusions, microperimetry may be preferable in cases of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal visual field. However, standard automated perimetry remains the gold standard for monitoring glaucoma, especially in patients with diffuse retinal nerve fiber layer impairment and visual field defects. The newly introduced Compass device can potentially provide a more accurate structural-functional evaluation than standard automated perimetry and can therefore produce superior testing reliability.

Indexed as

GlaucomaGlaucoma, Open-AngleOptic Nerve DiseasesHumansNerve FibersReproducibility of ResultsRetinal Ganglion CellsVisual Field TestsFixation stabilityGlaucomaMicroperimetryRetinal sensitivityStandard automated perimetry

Identifiers

PMID35094226
OpenAlexW4210307677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.