ReviewScientific reports2024
Relationship between residual visual field and full-field stimulus testing in patients with late-stage retinal degenerative diseases.
Review in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Full-Field Stimulus Threshold: A Key Functional Outcome Measure in Retinal Diseases and Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The role of full-field stimulus threshold in evaluating Bietti crystalline dystrophy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Observational
- Sustained improvement in dark-adapted sensitivity but not BCVA after voretigene neparvovec treatment in a mainland Chinese child with biallelicFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Location and Identity of Photoreceptors Contributing to the Full-Field Stimulus Test (FST).Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate how the extent and central/peripheral location of the residual visual field (VF) in patients with late-stage inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are related to retinal sensitivity detected using full-field stimulus testing (FST). We reviewed the results of Goldmann perimetry and FST from the medical records of patients with IRDs whose VF represents central (within 10°) and/or peripheral islands, or undetectable. In total, 19 patients (19 eyes) were analyzed in this study. The median value of residual VF area was 1.38%. The median values of rod and cone sensitivities were - 14.9 dB and 7.4 dB, respectively. Patients with only the peripheral island (- 33.9 dB) had better median rod sensitivity than other groups (only central, - 18.9 dB; both, - 3.6 dB). VF area significantly correlated with rod sensitivity (r = - 0.943, p = 0.005) in patients with only peripheral island, but not with cone sensitivity. Peripheral VF islands were significant contributors to FST results, especially rod sensitivity. With reduced or loss of central vision, the extent of residual peripheral VF significantly affected rod sensitivity, suggesting that FST can be useful in quantitatively estimating the overall remaining vision in patients with late-stage IRD.
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.