ArticleOphthalmology science
Twelve-month Natural History Study of Centrosomal Protein 290 (CEP290)-associated Inherited Retinal Degeneration.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene Editing forThe New England journal of medicine · 2024Trial
- Full-Field Stimulus Threshold: A Key Functional Outcome Measure in Retinal Diseases and Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Base and Prime Editing for Inherited Retinal Diseases: Delivery Platforms, Safety, Efficacy, and Translational Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Advancing gene editing therapeutics: Clinical trials and innovative delivery systems across diverse diseases.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Review
- Functional vision tests as clinical trial outcome measures in ophthalmology: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Update on Clinical Trial Endpoints in Gene Therapy Trials for Inherited Retinal Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To define the clinical characteristics of centrosomal protein 290 ( Design: Participants in this natural history study were enrolled into 2 best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) cohorts: light perception to > 1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and 1.0 logMAR to 0.4 logMAR. Each comprised 4 age cohorts (3-5, 6-11, 12-17, and ≥ 18 years). Participants: Patients with Methods: Best-corrected visual acuity, full-field stimulus threshold (FST) sensitivity, Ora-Visual Navigation Challenge (Ora-VNC) composite score, and OCT-outer nuclear layer (OCT-ONL) average thickness were assessed at screening, baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Main Outcome Measures: Best-corrected visual acuity, FST sensitivity, Ora-VNC composite score, and OCT-ONL average thickness. Results: Twenty-six participants were included in this analysis. Nineteen were female. All participants were White and 4 reported Hispanic ethnicity. At screening, 13 of 16 adult and 9 of 10 pediatric participants had BCVA > 1.0 logMAR. Baseline BCVA was variable (median [range] = 2.0 [0.5, 3.9] logMAR) and was uncorrelated with age, as were VNC composite score, FST sensitivity, and OCT-ONL average thickness. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) test-retest variability was -0.04 (-0.09, 0.01) logMAR for BCVA (n = 25); 0.6 (-0.1, 1.3) for VNC composite score (n = 18); and 0.10 (-0.07, 0.27) log cd.s/m Conclusions: Vision was stable over 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity, FST, and VNC composite score are potentially viable endpoints for future studies in CEP290-associated IRD. Repeatability of OCT measures poses challenges for quantifying anatomical changes in this population. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.