ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Utility of targeted mean total deviation trend analysis for detecting progressive visual field changes in early-to-moderate stage glaucoma.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical utility of trend-based analysis of the targeted mean total deviation (TMTD) by comparing its rates of visual field (VF) change and sensitivities of detecting VF progression with those of the mean total deviation (mTD) in the global and hemifield VF area in early to-moderate glaucoma patients.
methodsA single eye from 139 open-angle glaucoma patients with hemifield VF defects and a minimum two year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. The TMTD was estimated by averaging the total deviation (TD) values after excluding VF points that had a threshold sensitivity of <0 dB in three baseline tests, and the mTD by averaging the entire VF TD values. The study patients were classified as VF progressors vs. non-progressors using both event- and trend-based analysis. The rates of change and ratios of progression detection were compared between TMTD and mTD.
resultsThis study included 49 VF progressors and 90 non-progressors. Slopes for the global and VF-affected hemifield TMTD were significantly faster than those for the mTD in each subgroup and in the entire cohort (P < 0.001). Trend-based TMTD analysis detected VF progression in greater proportion than either trend-based mTD or event-based analysis (38.1% vs. 30.2% vs. 27.3%, respectively: VF affected hemifields).
conclusionsThe rates of change in the TMTD are significantly faster than those for the mTD globally and in the VF-affected hemifields. Trend-based TMTD analysis shows greater sensitivity for detecting VF progression than trend-based mTD or event-based analysis in early-to-moderate glaucoma patients with hemifield VF loss.
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.