ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Estimating the Distribution of True Rates of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Relationship Between Intraocular Pressure and the True Rate of Functional and Structural Progression in the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Trial
- Is intraocular pressure the right criterion to assess progression or success in glaucoma?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evolution of Visual Field Defects After Occipital Stroke: A Quantitative Analysis.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Author Response: The Distribution of True Visual Field Progression Rates in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- The Distribution of True Visual Field Progression Rates in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the distribution of the true rates of progression (RoP) of visual field (VF) loss. Methods: We analyzed the progression of mean deviation over time in series of ≥ 10 tests from 3352 eyes (one per patient) from 5 glaucoma clinics, using a novel Bayesian hierarchical Linear Mixed Model (LMM); this modeled the random-effect distribution of RoPs as the sum of 2 independent processes following, respectively, a negative exponential distribution (the "true" distribution of RoPs) and a Gaussian distribution (the "noise"), resulting in a skewed exGaussian distribution. The exGaussian-LMM was compared to a standard Gaussian-LMM using the Watanabe-Akaike Information Criterion (WAIC). The random-effect distributions were compared to the empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) of linear regression RoPs using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results: The WAIC indicated a better fit with the exGaussian-LMM (estimate [standard error]: 192174.4 [721.2]) than with the Gaussian-LMM (192595 [697.4], with a difference of 157.2 [22.6]). There was a significant difference between the eCDF and the Gaussian-LMM distribution (P < 0.0001), but not with the exGaussian-LMM distribution (P = 0.108). The estimated mean (95% credible intervals, CIs) "true" RoP (-0.377, 95% CI = -0.396 to -0.359 dB/year) was more negative than the observed mean RoP (-0.283, 95% CI = -0.299 to -0.268 dB/year), indicating a bias likely due to learning in standard LMMs. Conclusions: The distribution of "true" RoPs can be estimated with an exGaussian-LMM, improving model accuracy. Translational Relevance: We used these results to develop a fast and accurate analytical approximation for sample-size calculations in clinical trials using standard LMMs, which was integrated in a freely available web application.
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.