ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Statistical Methods for Best and Worst Eye Measurements.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Eye-tracking biomarkers for glaucoma based on saccadic reaction time: a controlled clinical study.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The focus is often on the best and worst eyes to detect early predictive and non-invasive biomarkers of diabetic retinopathy. Typically, such data have been dealt with in a case-control setting, which applies two-sample tests and ignores the correlation between the fellow eyes. Practitioners are mostly unaware that such measurements hide the labels of the fellow eyes, which rules out standard tools, such as paired Methods: This report discusses the problems with such data on best and worst eye measurements, and illustrates alternative paired tests for equality of means or locations using a case-control dataset. Results: This report illustrates that methods which ignore the correlation between fellow eyes result in grossly conservative tests. A battery of Discussion: This finding emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate control group for the detection of possible markers. Further, it cites an example to show that using data from fellow eyes and adjusting for their correlation may not always be the best option, contrary to common perception.
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.