ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Relating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed With Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss Due to Glaucoma and NAION.
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.
- Archetypal Analysis Reveals Consistent Visual Field Patterns for Stimulus Size III and Size Modulation Perimetry in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Archetypal Analysis Reveals Consistent Visual Field Patterns for Stimulus Sizes III and V in Glaucoma and NAION.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field (VF) results are more repeatable using Goldmann stimulus size V (size V) in eyes with moderate/severe deficits due to glaucoma. There are few reports relating VFs using stimulus size V and III, typically used in the clinic for glaucoma, and none for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). We hypothesized that we could compare and relate the VFs with both stimuli for glaucoma and NAION. Methods: We utilized 1992 same-day pairs of size III and size V SAP VFs using the 24-2 strategy for eyes with glaucoma or NAION. We explored the optimal threshold to censor the raw sensitivities, prior to calculating age-standardized total deviations (TDs). We determined the mean and standard deviation of the differences among all TD pairs. We computed a line of best fit to determine closeness to the line of unity. Results: The ideal censoring conversion threshold was 21 decibel (dB) for size III and 24 dB for size V. The difference between size V and size III censored (0.0 ± 1.9 dB) and uncensored (0.4 ± 2.6 dB) TD pairings highly correlate with each other (r2 = 0.70, P < 0.001). The line of best fit from these pairings has a slope of 0.92, which is close to that of the line of unity (m = 1). Conclusions: Censoring plus age correction is a valid method of comparison between size III and size V SAP VFs with moderate to severe VF loss due to optic nerve disorders. Translational Relevance: Size III and size V TDs are comparable in clinical practice.
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.