ArticleJournal of glaucoma2025
Assessment of Missing Data on Glaucoma Severity Among Participants in the NIH All of Us Research Program of the United States.
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2025. 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.
- Associations Between Physical Activity and Glaucoma: Analysis of the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program.Journal of glaucoma · 2026Article
- High-Density Lipoproteins Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the All of Us Research Program.Ophthalmology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
PRÉCIS: There were statistically significant differences across multiple socioeconomic characteristics and self-reported barriers to care among primary glaucoma patients with severity staging data versus those missing this data in the NIH All of Us database. PURPOSE: To characterize missing data among glaucoma patients within All of Us . MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used diagnosis codes to define cohorts of primary glaucoma patients with and without severity staging specified. Descriptive analyses were conducted by presence of disease severity stage. Analysis of missing data was conducted using a set intersection plot and the Little Test of Missing Completely at Random. T tests were performed to evaluate differences.
resultsOf 2982 participants, 1714 (57%) did not have glaucoma severity stage specified, and 11 of 23 analyzed variables had missing data. The Little Test indicated data was not missing completely at random ( P <0.001). Significant differences existed between the 2 cohorts with respect to age, age of first glaucoma diagnosis, gender, ethnicity, education, income, insurance, history of glaucoma surgery and medication use, and answers regarding the ability to afford eyeglasses and having seen an eye care provider in the last 12 months (all P- values ≤0.01).
conclusionThere were significant differences between glaucoma participants with glaucoma severity stage specified versus those with unstaged disease across multiple socioeconomic characteristics and self-reported barriers to care. Glaucoma severity staging data was not missing completely at random. The unstaged cohort included higher rates of multiple underrepresented communities, which may potentially contribute to bias in ophthalmology research as participants from vulnerable populations may be disproportionately excluded from electronic health records or claims data studies where diagnosis codes with severity/staging levels are used to examine risk factors for disease, progression, and treatment efficacy.
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.