ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Objective Grading of Tonography Tracings for the Measurement of Outflow Facility.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Tonography is the standard method for non-invasive measurement of aqueous humor outflow facility. However, assessment of tonography tracing quality is currently subjective, and acceptance of poor-quality data or inappropriately discarding valid data can bias results. The purpose of this study was to develop an objective method for assessing the quality of tonography tracings. Methods: Pneumatonography tracings were obtained from glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients as part of an ongoing multicenter study of aqueous humor dynamics. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was captured digitally at 40 Hz over 2 minutes. Root mean square error (RMSE) of a linear best-fit line was obtained for each tracing. Each tracing was also graded by seven experienced tonographers using a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) for quality (Expert score). A Reference set of 35 tracings was used to determine the relationship between RMSE values and Expert scores using a logarithmic curve. This relationship was used to calculate a predicted score in a second Test set of 20 tracings. A logarithmic curve was used to account for the fixed range of Expert scores and unbounded upper range for RMSE values. The differences between the predicted scores and the Expert scores were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: There was a very strong correlation between predicted and Expert scores (R = 0.94). The mean difference between Expert and predicted scores was -1.01 ± 0.84, and the limits of agreement were between -2.65 and +0.63. Conclusions: Objective assessment of pneumatonography tracings can be performed using RMSE of a fitted line and calculation of a predicted quality score that closely matches scores given by expert graders. Translational Relevance: Tonography tracing quality can now be objectively assessed.
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.