ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2022
Seeing invisible light: 2-photon microperimetry to measure visual function.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Function Loss Through Opacified Media: Comparison Between Single- and Two-Photon Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- [Emerging technology for retinal function testing: two-photon microperimetry].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Color vision with a two-photon infrared RGB display.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Role of microperimetry to detect early visual function deficits in patients with hydroxychloroquine retinal toxicity-a review.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Boosting 2-photon vision with adaptive optics.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- From mouse to human: Accessing the biochemistry of vision in vivo by two-photon excitation.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The accuracy of conventional visual function tests, which emit visible light, decreases in patients with corneal scars, cataracts, and vitreous hemorrhages. In contrast, infrared (IR) light exhibits greater tissue penetrance than visible light and is less susceptible to optical opacities. We therefore compared conventional visual function tests against infrared 2-phton microperimetry (2PM-IR) in a subject with a brunescent nuclear sclerotic and posterior subcapsular cataract before and after cataract surgery. Methods: Testing using infrared light microperimetry from a novel device (2PM-IR), visible light microperimetry from a novel device (2PM-Vis), conventional microperimetry, and the cone contrast threshold (CCT) test were performed before and after cataract surgery. Results: Retinal sensitivity assessed using 2PM-IR, 2PM-Vis, and cMP improved by 3.4 dB, 17.4 dB, and 18 dB, respectively. Cone contrast threshold testing improved for the S-cone, M-cone, and l-cone by 111, 14, and 30. Conclusions and Importance: 2PM-IR, unlike conventional visual function tests, showed minimal variability in retinal sensitivity before and after surgery. Thus, IR visual stimulation may provide a more accurate means of measuring neurosensory retinal function by circumventing optical media opacities, aiding in the diagnosis of early macular disease.
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.