ArticleOphthalmology science
Customized Evaluation of Progressive Visual Sensitivity Loss in Geographic Atrophy to Improve the Power of Clinical Trials.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated OCT-tailored and same-visit biomarker-targeted microperimetry in geographic atrophy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Visual Function Assessment in Geographic Atrophy: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Geographic Atrophy Structure-Function Relationships Based on Loss of OCT Outer Retinal Bands and Fundus Autofluorescence.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- CLEAR report 1: a scoping review and meta-analysis for definitions, imaging metrics, and functional correlates of photoreceptor integrity in AMD.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Targeted Defect-Mapping Microperimetry in Geographic Atrophy: A Sensitive Functional Outcome Measure for Intervention Trials.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches for customizing the selection of a subset of test locations on defect-mapping microperimetry (DMP) for improving the detection of progressive visual function decline in geographic atrophy (GA). Design: Prospective longitudinal study. Participants: Sixty eyes from 53 participants with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Participants underwent 3-monthly DMP testing twice at each visit for up to 24 months, where the extent of deep visual sensitivity losses on each test was determined through single presentations of 10-decibel stimuli at 208 locations within the central 8° radius region. Seven outcome measures were derived, which included evaluating the proportion of locations missed (PLM; showing nonresponse to stimuli) on DMP in a subset of test locations based on their proximity to the GA margin, or to locations neighboring repeatably nonresponding points on 2 baseline tests (i.e., missed both tests at baseline). These outcome measures were compared by their coefficient of variation (CoV; reflecting performance for capturing longitudinal changes) and sample size estimates in a 2-arm trial seeking to detect a ≥30% treatment effect. Changes in GA extent and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were evaluated for comparison. Main Outcome Measures: Coefficient of variation and sample size estimates. Results: Evaluating PLM at points immediately adjacent (<1°) to repeatably nonresponding test locations at baseline (CoV = 47%) was the best performing outcome measure on DMP testing. This measure outperformed BCVA (CoV = 188%; Conclusions: Customized evaluation of DMP functional testing results in regions adjacent to repeatably nonresponding locations at baseline improved the detection of longitudinal changes compared with the evaluation of all test locations. These findings show that it is possible to sensitively capture progressive visual function decline with this approach, supporting its use in future GA treatment trials. 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.