ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Detection of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avoiding False-Positive Glaucoma Diagnosis in Myopic Eyes: Clinical Importance of OCT Scan Diameter.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Pattern-Based OCT Metric for Glaucoma Detection.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Detecting Established Glaucoma Using OCT Alone: Utilizing an OCT Reading Center in a Real-World Clinical Setting.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Progression of Early Glaucomatous Damage: Performance of Summary Statistics From Optical Coherence Tomography and Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- The OCT RNFL Probability Map and Artifacts Resembling Glaucomatous Damage.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Ganglion Cell Layer and Ganglion Cell/Inner Plexiform Layer Measures for Detection of Early Glaucoma.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual field (VF) summary statistics (metrics) that are available in OCT and VF reports. Methods: OCT disc and macular scans and 24-2 and 10-2 VFs were obtained from 56 healthy control (HC) eyes/participants and 61 eyes/patients with 24-2 mean deviation of better than -6 dB. All metrics were obtained from OCT radial, circle, and posterior pole cube scans and 24-2 and 10-2 VFs. Their diagnostic performances were evaluated, in isolation and in combinations. For specificity, the 56 HC eyes were used. For sensitivity, 40 of the 61 patient eyes were deemed likely glaucomatous based on an automated topographic method that evaluates structure-function (S-F) agreement. Any 1 of these 40 eyes not judged as abnormal by any given metric was considered a false negative. Results: All single OCT and VF metrics misclassified HCs as glaucomatous and missed likely glaucomatous eyes. The best performing single metric was the temporal inferior thickness of the 3.5-mm circle scan, with 96% specificity and 83% sensitivity. Combinations of OCT-OCT and OCT-VF metrics markedly improved specificity. A newly proposed metric that evaluates structure-structure (S-S) agreement at a hemifield level had the highest accuracy. This S-S metric had 98% specificity and 80% sensitivity. Conclusions: OCT and VF metrics, single or in combinations, have only moderate sensitivity for eyes with early glaucoma. Translational Relevance: OCT and VF metrics combinations evaluating S-S or S-F agreement can be highly specific, which is an important implication for clinical and research purposes.
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.