ArticlePloS one2023
Investigating the clinical validity of the guided progression analysis definition with 10-2 visual field in retinitis pigmentosa.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical validity of the Guided Progression Analysis definition (GPAD) and cluster-based definition (CBD) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 10-2 test in retinitis pigmentosa (RP).
methodsTen non-progressive RP visual fields (VFs) (HFA 10-2 test) were simulated for each of 10 VFs of 111 eyes (10 simulations × 10 VF sequencies × 111 eyes = 111,000 VFs; Dataset 1). Using these simulated VFs, the specificity of GPAD for the detection of progression was determined. Using this dataset, similar analyses were conducted for the CBD, in which the HFA 10-2 test was divided into four quadrants. Subsequently, the Hybrid Definition was designed by combining the GPAD and CBD; various conditions of the GPAD and CBD were altered to approach a specificity of 95.0%. Subsequently, actual HFA 10-2 tests of 116 RP eyes (10 VFs each) were collected (Dataset 2), and true positive rate, true negative rate, false positive rate, and the time required to detect VF progression were evaluated and compared across the GPAD, CBD, and Hybrid Definition.
resultsSpecificity values were 95.4% and 98.5% for GPAD and CBD, respectively. There were no significant differences in true positive rate, true negative rate, and false positive rate between the GPAD, CBD, and Hybrid Definition. The GPAD and Hybrid Definition detected progression significantly earlier than the CBD (at 4.5, 5.0, and 4.5 years, respectively).
conclusionsThe GPAD and the optimized Hybrid Definition exhibited similar ability for the detection of progression, with the specificity reaching 95.4%.
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.