ArticleOphthalmology science
Sources of Discrepancy between Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Bruch's Membrane Opening-Minimum Rim Width Thickness in Eyes with Glaucoma.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: To compare the discrepancies between circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) thickness in glaucoma eyes. Design: A cross-sectional observational study. Subjects: One hundred eighty-six eyes (118 patients) with glaucoma. Methods: OCT optic nerve head volume scans of patients enrolled in the Advanced Glaucoma Progression Study at the final available visit were exported. The RNFL and BMO-MRW measurements were averaged into corresponding 7.5° sectors, and the nasal sector data were excluded from analyses. A 2-stage screening process was used to identify true mismatches between the RNFL and BMO-MRW measurements, in which either the RNFL or BMO-MRW value was in the less than first percentile range while its counterpart was in the greater than first percentile range on the temporal-superior-nasal-inferior-temporal curve. The prevalence of these mismatches was mapped, and corresponding images were reviewed to determine the underlying cause of these discrepancies. Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of mismatches between RNFL and BMO-MRW, location of mismatches between RNFL and BMO-MRW, anatomical causes of mismatches between RNFL and BMO-MRW. Results: Mismatch analysis revealed true mismatches between RNFL and BMO-MRW in 7.7% of sectors. High BMO-MRW with low corresponding RNFL mismatches were most frequently located at the 45° and 322.5° sectors, whereas high RNFL with corresponding low BMO-MRW mismatches peaked at the 75° sector. Large blood vessels accounted for 90.9% of high RNFL with low BMO-MRW mismatches. Small to large blood vessels accounted for 62.9% of high BMO-MRW with low RNFL mismatches; the remaining mismatches could be attributed to retinoschisis or inclusion of outer retinal layers in BMO-MRW measurements. Conclusions: Although overall agreement between RNFL and BMO-MRW measurements is good in areas with advanced damage, blood vessels and other anatomical factors can cause discrepancies between the 2 types of structural measurements and need to be considered when evaluating the utility of such measurements for detection of change. 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.