Observational studyOphthalmology2023
Fast Progressors in Glaucoma: Prevalence Based on Global and Central Visual Field Loss.
Observational study in Ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fusing Structural Phenotypes with Functional Data for Early Prediction of Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma Progression.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Fast Progressors in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A 5-Year Visual Field Index-Based Classification in a Real-World Cohort.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Sparse-Observation Multi-Horizon Glaucoma Progression Forecasting with Biologically Constrained Temporal Consistency: A Glaucoma Case Study.Research square · 2026Article
- Visual field progression in varying severities of treated patients with primary angle closure glaucoma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Prediction of Functional Glaucoma Progression From Clinical and Structural Data.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Proportion of Fast Progressors in the Central versus Global Visual Field Across Varying Glaucoma Severity Groups.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- A systematic review of AI for predicting glaucoma progression: challenges and recommendations towards clinical implementation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Social Determinants of Glaucoma Risk and Vision-Related Quality of Life in Rural Nigeria.Annals of global health · 2026Article
- Research progress on molecular therapy for glaucoma (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Comparison of Methods for Visual Field Progression in Eyes With Central Visual Field Defects.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- [Progression assessment of glaucoma].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
- Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Differential Impact of Central and Global Visual Field Progression on Quality of Life in Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predicting progressive vision loss in glaucoma patients using functional principal component analysis and electronic health records.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Real world outcomes of Kahook Dual Blade goniotomy in black and Afro-Latinx adult patients with glaucoma: a 2-year retrospective study.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Artifact Correction in Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Maps Using Deep Learning and Its Clinical Utility in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Foveal avascular zone vessel density is associated with visual field progression in early-stage glaucoma eyes with central visual field damage.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Biochemical-molecular-genetic biomarkers in the tear film, aqueous humor, and blood of primary open-angle glaucoma patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Time to Identify Glaucoma Progression Given Typical Visual Field Testing Frequencies in a US Nationwide Insured Population.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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the prevalence of fast global and central visual field (VF) progression in individuals with glaucoma under routine care.
designObservational study.
participantsSix hundred ninety-three eyes of 461 individuals with glaucoma followed up over a median of 4.5 years.
methodsThis study included (1) patients at a private ophthalmology clinic in Melbourne, Australia, and (2) individuals in 2 prospective longitudinal observational studies across 3 sites in the United States. All individuals had a diagnosis of glaucoma and were under routine care, and had performed 5 or more reliable 24-2 VF tests over a 1- to 5-year period. Ordinary least squares regression analyses were used to calculate the rate of global mean deviation (MD) change over time and the rate of the mean total deviation values of the 12 test locations within the central 10° region (MTD
main outcome measuresPrevalence of progression based on the rate of MD and the MTD
resultsBased on the MD and the MTD
conclusionsThis study found that approximately 1 in 8 eyes with glaucoma receiving routine care showed fast progression based on global MD values (< -1.0 dB/year) and that nearly 1 in 3 eyes showed a < -0.5 dB/year decline centrally. These findings highlight the clinical importance of assessing progressive central VF loss and reinforce the need for new therapies to prevent functional disability in a notable proportion of individuals who continue to exhibit fast progression. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
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.