ArticleOphthalmology science
Comparison of Microperimetry and Static Perimetry for Evaluating Macular Function and Progression in Retinitis Pigmentosa.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Inflammatory Markers and Disease Progression in Moderate-Stage Retinitis Pigmentosa: Longitudinal Analysis from the Retinitis Pigmentosa Progression and Inflammatory Marker Registry Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Full-Field Stimulus Threshold: A Key Functional Outcome Measure in Retinal Diseases and Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the usefulness of microperimetry and static automated perimetry in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), using macular anatomical metrics as a reference. Design: Prospective observational study. Participants: Forty-eight eyes of 48 patients with RP in Kyushu University Hospital who underwent microperimetry-3 (MP-3) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 10-2 testing ≥3 times during ≥2 years were included. Methods: Macular anatomy (ellipsoid zone [EZ] length) was assessed by OCT, and macular function was assessed by MP-3 (mean retinal sensitivity at radii 2°, 4°, and 8°) and HFA10-2 program (mean retinal sensitivity at radii 2°, 4°, and 8°). Correlations between functional and anatomical parameters were analyzed cross sectionally at baseline and longitudinally by comparing the rate of progression. Main Outcome Measures: Correlation coefficients between anatomical and functional metrics. Results: The mean age at baseline was 50.1 ± 12.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 2.8 ± 0.7 years. At baseline, EZ length was significantly correlated with MP-3 mean retinal sensitivity at radii 2°, 4°, and 8° (Spearman's ρ = 0.65, 0.84, 0.89; all Conclusions: Both MP-3 and HFA values were cross sectionally well-correlated with EZ length in patients with patients; however, these associations became weaker in the longitudinal analysis. This highlights the need for researchers to explore additional or more sensitive parameters to better monitor RP progression. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.