ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
The Usefulness of Assessing Glaucoma Progression With Postprocessed Visual Field Data.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting progressive vision loss in glaucoma patients using functional principal component analysis and electronic health records.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Data postprocessing with statistical techniques that are less sensitive to noise can be used to reduce variability in visual field (VF) series. We evaluated the detection of glaucoma progression with postprocessed VF data generated with the dynamic structure-function (DSF) model and MM-estimation robust regression (MRR). Method: The study included 118 glaucoma eyes with at least 15 visits selected from the Rotterdam dataset. The DSF and MRR models were each applied to observed mean deviation (MD) values from the first three visits (V1-3) to predict the MD at V4. MD at V5 was predicted with data from V1-4 and so on until the MD at V9 was predicted, creating two additional datasets: DSF-predicted and MRR-predicted. Simple linear regression was performed to assess progression at the ninth visit. Sensitivity was evaluated by adjusting for false-positive rates estimated from patients with stable glaucoma and by using longer follow-up series (12th and 15th visits) as a surrogate for progression. Results: For specificities of 80% to 100%, the DSF-predicted dataset had greater sensitivity than the observed and MRR-predicted dataset when positive rates were normalized with corresponding false-positive estimates. The DSF-predicted and observed datasets had similar sensitivity when the surrogate reference standard was applied. Conclusions: Without compromising specificity, the use of DSF-predicted measurements to identify progression resulted in a better or similar sensitivity compared to using existing VF data. Translational Relevance: The DSF model could be applied to postprocess existing visual field data, which could then be evaluated to identify patients at risk of progression.
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.