Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38241029›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024

Visual Sensitivity Loss in Geographic Atrophy: Structure-Function Evaluation Using Defect-Mapping Microperimetry.

Zhichao Wu, Xavier Hadoux, Maxime Jannaud, Emily K Glover, Erin E Gee, Lauren A B Hodgson, Peter van Wijngaarden, Robyn H Guymer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Visual Function Assessment in Geographic Atrophy: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Geographic atrophy: Understanding the relationship between structure and function.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
    Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhichao WuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Xavier HadouxCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Maxime JannaudCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Emily K GloverCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Erin E GeeCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Lauren A B HodgsonCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Peter van WijngaardenCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Robyn H GuymerCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Centre for Eye Research Australia · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the structure-function relationship in eyes with geographic atrophy (GA) using defect-mapping microperimetry, a testing strategy optimized to quantify the spatial extent of deep visual sensitivity losses. Methods: Fifty participants with GA underwent defect-mapping microperimetry testing of the central 8°-radius region (208 locations tested once with a 10-decibel stimuli) and fundus autofluorescence imaging in one eye. The GA extent in the corresponding central 8°-radius was derived by manual annotations and image co-registration to examine the global structure-function relationship. The distance of each test location from the GA margin was also derived, and regions defined, to examine the local structure-function relationship. Results: GA extent in the central 8° explained a substantial proportion of variance in the percentage of locations missed (nonresponse) on microperimetry at the global level (R2 = 0.90). At a local level, the probability of missing stimuli at the outer junctional zone (0-500 µm outside the GA margin) and GA margin (probability = 7% and 34%, respectively) was higher than at the outer nonlesional zone (>500 µm outside the GA margin; probability = 2%; P < 0.001 for both). The probability of missing stimuli at the inner junctional zone (0-250 µm inside the GA margin) was also lower than at the inner lesional zone (>250 µm inside the GA margin; probability = 64% and 88%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study confirms the expected functional relevance of the region with GA on fundus autofluorescence imaging and underscores the potential effectiveness of defect-mapping microperimetry testing for capturing visual function changes when evaluating new GA treatments.

Indexed as

Geographic AtrophyMacular DegenerationFluorescein AngiographyHumansRetinal Pigment EpitheliumTomography, Optical CoherenceVision DisordersVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID38241029
PMCPMC10807497
OpenAlexW4391035211

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.