ArticleCurrent eye research2024
Repeatability of Rod-Mediated Dark Adaptation Testing in Normal Aging and Early and Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Current eye research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impaired Rod-Mediated Vision is the Functional Hallmark of Ageing and Early and Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- The Science of Rod-Mediated Dark Adaptation, an Outcome Measure for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The 2025 Proctor Medal Lecture.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Recovery of the Pupillary Response After Light Adaptation Is Slowed in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Article
- Choriocapillaris Impairment, Visual Function, and Distance to Fovea in Aging and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: ALSTAR2 Baseline.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe vulnerability of rod photoreceptors in aging and early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has been well documented. Rod-mediated dark adaptation (RMDA) is a measure of the recovery of light sensitivity in rod photoreceptors following a bright light. Delays in RMDA during early and intermediate AMD have been widely reported. For RMDA's promise as an outcome for trials targeted at early and intermediate AMD to be realized, excellent test-retest reliability, its repeatability, must be established.
methodsTest-retest performance in a commonly used RMDA test based on the rod intercept time metric (RIT) was evaluated in participants with early and intermediate AMD and with normal retinal aging with testing approximately 2 weeks apart. The test target was placed at 5° eccentricity superior to the foveal center, an area with maximal rod loss in aging and AMD. Disease severity was identified by a trained and masked grader of fundus photographs using both the AREDS 9-step and Beckman classification systems. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) evaluated repeatability.
resultsThe analysis sample consisted of 37 older adults (mean age 76 years, standard deviation 5), with approximately one-third of the sample in each of three groups - normal aging, early AMD, and intermediate AMD. For the total sample, the ICC was 0.98. For individual AMD groups for both AREDS 9-step and Beckman classifications, the ICCs were also very high ranging from 0.82 to 0.99.
conclusionWe demonstrated that RMDA testing using the RIT metric has excellent repeatability when target location is at 5° in studying older adults from normal aging to intermediate AMD, suggesting the reliable use of this functional measure in trials.
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.