ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Comparison of Glaucoma Detection Performance of Binocular Perimetry Screening Program Using imo Perimetry With Frequency Doubling Technology.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a Novel Suprathreshold Strategy for Screening Visual Function.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Glaucoma Severity and Progression Using Imo/TEMPO Screening Program.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
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: We aimed to preliminarily compare the glaucoma detection accuracy of a head-mounted binocular visual perimeter "imo" screening program (ISP) with that of frequency doubling technology (FDT). Methods: This multicenter, diagnostic accuracy study based on prospectively collected data included 76 non-glaucoma (including pre-perimetric glaucoma) eyes and 92 glaucomatous eyes from patients visiting two hospitals. Patients underwent ISP and FDT (C-20-1 screening program) on the same day. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the curve (AUCs). In addition, we compared the ISP and FDT testing times. Results: AUC values for ISP versus FDT were as follows: (1) mild-stage glaucoma (mean deviation [MD] > -6 dB), 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.88) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.83); moderate-stage glaucoma (-6 dB ≥ MD ≥ -12 dB), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-1.00) versus 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-1.00); and advanced-stage glaucoma (-12 dB > MD), 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) versus 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). In addition, mild-stage glaucoma was classified into two stages (MD > -3 D) and (-3 D ≥ MD > -6 D). AUC values were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.88) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.84) for MD > -3 D and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.94) versus 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.86) for -3 D ≥ MD > -6 D. The testing time for the ISP was significantly shorter than that of FDT for all glaucoma stages (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The ISP demonstrates non-inferiority in detecting glaucoma and has a shorter testing time compared with FDT. These findings provide evidence for applied further studies on large-scale population-based glaucoma screening. Translational Relevance: Our study provides a non-inferior and quicker glaucoma screening than existing tools.
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.