ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Campimetry in glaucoma - correspondence with standard perimetry and OCT.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Rapid campimetry - a novel robust kinetic approach for visual field screening in glaucoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Detectability of Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma Using Moving Versus Static Stimuli for Perimetry.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Static pointwise perimetric sensitivities of less than approximately 19 dB are unreliable in glaucoma owing to excessive variability. We propose using moving stimuli to increase detectability, decrease variability, and hence increase this dynamic range. Methods: A moving stimulus was designed to travel parallel to the average nerve fiber bundle orientation at each location, and compared against an otherwise identical static stimulus. To assess dynamic range, psychometric functions were measured at 4 locations of each of 10 subjects. To assess clinically realistic test-retest variability, 34 locations of 94 subjects with glaucoma and glaucoma suspects were tested twice, 6 months apart. Pointwise sensitivity estimates were compared using generalized estimating equation regression models. The test-retest limits of agreement for each stimulus were assessed, adjusted for within-eye clustering. Results: Using static stimuli, 9 of the 40 psychometric functions had less than a 90% maximum response probability, suggesting being beyond the dynamic range. Eight of those locations had asymptotic maximum of more than 90% with moving stimuli. Sensitivities were higher for moving stimuli (P < 0.001); the difference increased as sensitivity decreased (P < 0.001). Test-retest limits of agreement were narrower for moving stimuli (-6.35 to +6.48 dB) than static stimuli (-12.7 to +7.81 dB). Sixty-two percent of subjects preferred using moving stimuli versus 19% who preferred static stimuli. Conclusions: Using a moving stimulus increases perimetric sensitivities in regions of glaucomatous loss. This extends the effective dynamic range, allowing reliable testing later into the disease. Results are more repeatable, and the test is preferred by most subjects. Translational Relevance: Moving stimuli allow reliable testing in patients with more severe glaucoma than currently possible.
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.