ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2025
Expert CONsensus on Visual Evaluation in Retinal disease manaGEment: the CONVERGE study.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual acuity measured with a 3 mm pupil and Maxwellian view for subjective vs. objective focus in patients with exudative retinal disease.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Article
- Applications of Modern Cell Therapies: The Latest Data in Ophthalmology.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Digital health and wearable devices for retinal disease monitoring.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRecent decades have seen significant advances in both structural and functional testing of retinal disease. However, the current clinical value of specific testing modalities, as well as future trends, need to be clearly identified in order to highlight areas for further development in routine care and clinical trials.
methodsWe designed a modified two-round Delphi study to obtain the opinion of a multidisciplinary group of 33 international experts involved in the field of retinal disease management/research to determine the level of agreement and consensus regarding the value and performance of specific structural and functional testing methods for retinal disease. On a Likert scale, a median of 1-2 indicated disagreement with the statement, and 5-6 indicated agreement with the statement. An IQR of ≤2 indicated consensus in the responses. Several questions also allowed comments on responses.
resultsThere was overall agreement that structural testing currently predominates for detection and monitoring. There was moderate agreement that functional testing remains important and will continue to do so in the future because it provides complementary information. Certain respondents considered that properly designed and applied psychophysical tests are as reliable and repeatable as structural observations and that functional changes are the most important in the long run. Respondents considered future care and research to require a combination of structural and functional testing with strong consensus that the relative importance will depend on disease type and stage.
conclusionThe study obtained important insights from a group of international experts regarding current and future needs in the management of retinal disease using a mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Responses provide a rich range of opinions that will be of interest to researchers seeking to design tests for future patient care and clinical trials.
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.