ArticleJournal of current glaucoma practice
Comparison of the Automated Pattern-Noise (PANO) Glaucoma Test with the HFA, an FDT Stimulus, and the Fundus Area Cup-to-disk Ratio.
Article in Journal of current glaucoma practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
objectiveTo compare the results of a new automated glaucoma test-Pattern-Noise (PANO)-to the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer-II (HFA), the fundus area cup-to-disk ratio (CDR), and a frequency doubling technology (FDT) stimulus. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective study performed in the West-Region of Cameroon. Two hundred and nineteen eyes of 122 adult patients were included with a clinical suspicion of normal-tension or primary open-angle glaucoma and no other major ocular pathology. Eyes were examined with PANO, HFA (24-2 SITA standard), and FDT-stimulus in a randomized order followed by clinical assessment of the CDR.
resultsParametric correlation of the mean contrast threshold of PANO with the mean contrast threshold of FDT-stimulus, total deviation of HFA, and area CDR was 0.94, -0.85, and 0.62, respectively (
conclusionThe results showed that PANO was successful in suspecting the presence of glaucoma. Pattern-Noise examination led to findings that were significantly correlated to HFA, FDT stimulus, and area CDR. Some patterns of defect were also correlated. Furthermore, PANO showed a reasonable examination time and error rate. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Affordable and robust visual field devices are lacking in large parts of the developing world. Comparing them to established methods is a prerequisite to their clinical use. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Hannen T, El-Khoury S, Patel R,
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.