SynthesisEye (London, England)2024
Retinal sensitivity changes in early/intermediate AMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of visual field testing under mesopic and scotopic lighting.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the Rate of Global and Pointwise Microperimetry Change to Predict Structural Conversion in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Visual Field Examinations for Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Visual fields under mesopic and scotopic lighting are increasingly being used for macular functional assessment. This review evaluates its statistical significance and clinical relevance, and the optimal testing protocol for early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD). PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to 14/05/2022. All quality assessments were performed according to GRADE guidelines. The primary outcome was global mean sensitivity (MS), further meta-analysed by: AMD classification scheme, device, test pattern, mesopic/scotopic lighting, stimuli size/chromaticity, pupil dilation, testing radius (area), background luminance, adaptation time, AMD severity, reticular pseudodrusen presence, and follow-up visit. From 1489 studies screened, 42 observational study results contributed to the primary meta-analysis. Supported by moderate GRADE certainty of the evidence, global MS was significantly reduced across all devices under mesopic and scotopic lighting with large effect size (-0.9 [-1.04, -0.75] Hedge's g, P < 0.0001). The device (P < 0.01) and lighting (P < 0.05) used were the only modifiable factors affecting global MS, whereby the mesopic MP-1 and MAIA produced the largest effect sizes and exceeded test-retest variabilities. Global MS was significantly affected by AMD severity (intermediate versus early AMD; -0.58 [-0.88, -0.29] Hedge's g or -2.55 [3.62, -1.47] MAIA-dB) and at follow-up visit (versus baseline; -0.62 [-0.84, -0.41] Hedge's g or -1.61[-2.69, -0.54] MAIA-dB). Magnitudes of retinal sensitivity changes in early/intermediate AMD are clinically relevant for the MP-1 and MAIA devices under mesopic lighting within the central 10° radius. Other factors including pupil dilation and dark adaptation did not significantly affect global MS in early/intermediate AMD.
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.