Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37219509›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023

Microperimetry Reliability Assessed From Fixation Performance.

Amandeep Singh Josan, Isabella Farrance, Laura J Taylor, Daniel Adeyoju, Thomas M W Buckley, Jasleen K Jolly, Robert E MacLaren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An Analysis of Scotopic Microperimetry in Healthy Adults.Translational vision science & technology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amandeep Singh JosanNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Isabella FarranceNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Laura J TaylorNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Daniel AdeyojuNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Thomas M W BuckleyOxford Eye Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Jasleen K JollyNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Robert E MacLarenNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR202821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Microperimetry provides an accurate assessment of central retinal sensitivity due to its fundus-tracking capability, but it has limited reliability indicators. One method currently employed, fixation loss, samples the optic nerve blind spot for positive responses; however, it is unclear if these responses arise from unintentional button presses or from tracking failure leading to stimuli misplacement. We investigated the relationship between blind spot scotoma positive responses (termed scotoma responses) and fixation. Methods: Part 1 of the study involved a custom grid of 181 points centered on the optic nerve that was constructed to map physiological blind spots in primary and simulated eccentric fixation positions. Scotoma responses and the 63% and 95% fixation bivariate contour ellipse areas (BCEA63 and BCEA95) were analyzed. In Part 2, fixation data from controls and patients with retinal diseases (234 eyes from 118 patients) were collected. Results: Part 1, a linear mixed model of 32 control participants, demonstrated significant (P < 0.001) correlation between scotoma responses and BCEA95. In Part 2, the upper 95% confidence intervals for BCEA95 were 3.7 deg2 for controls, 27.6 deg2 for choroideremia, 23.1 deg2 for typical rod-cone dystrophies, 21.4 deg2 for Stargardt disease, and 111.3 deg2 for age-related macular degeneration. Incorporating all pathology groups into an overall statistic resulted in an upper limit BCEA95 = 29.6 deg2. Conclusions: Microperimetry reliability is significantly correlated to fixation performance, and BCEA95 provides a surrogate marker for test accuracy. Examinations of healthy individuals and patients with retinal disease are deemed unreliable if BCEA95 > 4 deg2 and BCEA95 > 30 deg2, respectively. Translational Relevance: Microperimetry reliability should be assessed using fixation performance as summarized by BCEA95 rather than the level of fixation losses.

Indexed as

Retinal DiseasesScotomaFundus OculiHumansReproducibility of ResultsVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID37219509
PMCPMC10210519
OpenAlexW4377564342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.