ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
To compare central visual field progression using mean deviation and pointwise linear regression analysis.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. 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.
- Commentary: Rethinking 10-2 visual fields in early diagnosis of glaucoma for a glided glaucoma practice: The right choice to pick up a feeble noise?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare central visual field progression using mean deviation and pointwise linear regression (PLR) analysis. Methods: We analyzed the 10-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) tests for moderate and advanced primary glaucoma who had undergone at least five reliable 10-2 visual field tests with a minimum follow-up of at least two years and best-corrected visual acuity better than 6/12. Regression slope less than -1 dB/year at P < 0.01 at a point was defined as an individual threshold point progression. Results: Ninety-six eyes of 74 patients were included. The median follow-up duration was of 4 years (±1.97). Median 10-2 mean deviation (MD) at inclusion was -19.01 dB (interquartile range [IQR] -13.2, -24.14) and -21.90 (IQR - 13.4, -27.8) on 24-2 HVF. The median rate of MD change was -0.13 dB/year (IQR - 0.46, 0.08) for 10-2. The median rate for visual field index (VFI) change was 0.9% per year (IQR - 1.5, 0.4). Twenty-eight percent of eyes (27 eyes) showed progression. Twelve percent (12 eyes) showed progression of two or more points in the same hemifield on pointwise linear regression (PLR) analysis, and 16% of eyes (15 eyes) showed progression of one point. The median rate of MD change was significantly more in progressing eyes based on PLR analysis than eyes with no progression (-0.5 vs. -0.06 dB/year P < 0.001). One patient had likely and the second had possible progression on 24-2. In 24 eyes, event analysis did not show any change; the rest mean deviation was out of range. Conclusion: Central visual field PLR analysis is useful in detecting progression in advanced glaucomatous damage.
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.