Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974663›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Statistical Methods for Best and Worst Eye Measurements.

Kaustav Banerjee, Subhasish Pramanik, Lakshmi Kanta Mondal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kaustav BanerjeeDecision Sciences Area, Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226013, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9284-9519
Subhasish PramanikDepartment of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700020, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0641-192X
Lakshmi Kanta MondalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Medical College Campus, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700073, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0057-0778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

best eyeunordered pairsworst eye

Identifiers

PMID38974663
PMCPMC11227045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.