ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology2025
High-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.
Article in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 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.
- High-Resolution Microperimetry for Detecting Glaucomatous Damage: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Pericentral Scotometry Guided by Standard Perimetry Using Microperimetry in Glaucoma Patients.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the performance of high-resolution microperimetry testing against standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting glaucomatous damage seen on optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans.
methods250 eyes from 200 individuals underwent high-resolution microperimetry testing of a hemifield using a stimulus pattern optimised to sample typical arcuate patterns of visual field loss in glaucoma. SAP was performed using a 24-2 stimulus pattern. The presence of glaucomatous damage in each hemifield was subsequently independently assessed by two graders based on a circumpapillary OCT circle scan, 6×6 mm optic disc-centred OCT volume scan, and 15×15 mm widefield OCT volume scan.
resultsThe hemifield-based mean total deviation (MTD) and pointwise sensitivity standard deviation (PSD) for high-resolution microperimetry and SAP were both independently associated with the presence of glaucomatous damage in multivariable logistic regression analyses (p ≤ 0.046). Prediction models developed using these two parameters showed significantly higher performance with high-resolution microperimetry compared to SAP (partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [pAUC] = 0.86 and 0.75 respectively; p = 0.007). The performance of microperimetry decreased with decreasing resolution when the MTD and PSD values were derived from every second, third, and sixth test locations (pAUC = 0.85 [p = 0.16], 0.85 [p = 0.044] and 0.84 [p < 0.001] respectively), but they were all significantly better than SAP (p ≤ 0.028 for all).
conclusionsHigh-resolution microperimetry enabled improved performance for detecting glaucomatous damage compared to SAP, highlighting the potential value of fundus-tracking and higher-resolution sampling for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.
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.