Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37294702›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023

Microperimetry as an Outcome Measure in RPGR-associated Retinitis Pigmentosa Clinical Trials.

Laura J Taylor, Amandeep S Josan, Jasleen K Jolly, Robert E MacLaren

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Clinical and Molecular Features ofOphthalmology science · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. An Analysis of Scotopic Microperimetry in Healthy Adults.Translational vision science & technology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura J TaylorNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Amandeep S JosanNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jasleen K JollyVision and Eye Research Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Robert E MacLarenNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBAnglia Ruskin University · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To explore which microperimetry sensitivity index (pointwise sensitivity, mean sensitivity, and volume sensitivity) is suitable as a microperimetry outcome measure in patients with X-linked RPGR-associated retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Methods: Microperimetry data from patients with RPGR-associated RP were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Fourteen participants completed triplicate microperimetry testing, across 2 consecutive days for the repeatability analyses. Longitudinal data was obtained from 13 participants who completed microperimetry testing at two separate visits. Results: The test-retest coefficients of repeatability (CoR) for pointwise sensitivity were ±9.5 dB and ±9.3 dB, in the right and left eyes, respectively. The mean sensitivity CoR for the right and left eyes was ±0.7 dB and ±1.3 dB. Volume sensitivity CoR was ±144.5 dB*deg2 and ±324.2 dB*deg2 for the right and left eyes, respectively. The mean sensitivities were positively skewed toward zero in those with a high number of nonseeing points (arbitrarily assigned to -1.0 dB) and just seen points (0.0 dB). Volume sensitivities were unaffected by the averaging effects of skewed data. Conclusions: Clinical trials should report population-specific test-retest variability to determine a clinically significant change. Pointwise sensitivity indices should be used with caution as outcome measures in clinical trials owing to high levels of test-retest variability. Global indices seem to be less prone to variability. Volume sensitivity indices seem to be superior for use in RPGR-associated RP clinical trials compared with mean sensitivity because they are unaffected by the averaging effects of highly skewed data. Translational Relevance: Careful selection of sensitivity indices (VA) is required when using microperimetry as a clinical trial outcome measure.

Indexed as

Retinitis PigmentosaVisual Field TestsEyeEye ProteinsHumansRetrospective StudiesVisual FieldsEye ProteinsRPGR protein, human

Identifiers

PMID37294702
PMCPMC10259674
OpenAlexW4380080764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.