ArticleJournal of glaucoma2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Smart Supra Perimetry in Comparison With Standard Automated Perimetry in the Detection of Early Glaucoma.
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeted perimetry for mapping the shape of glaucomatous arcuate scotomata.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PRÉCIS: The diagnostic performance for detecting early glaucoma of a supra-threshold and a threshold visual field tests are compared. Their performance was found to be equivalent with the supra-threshold test being faster. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a supra-threshold and a threshold visual field test in detecting early glaucoma using optical coherence tomography (OCT) as the reference standard.
methodsData from 54 early/suspect glaucoma patients and 37 controls underwent a Humphrey Visual field Analyzer (HFA) SITA standard 24-2 threshold test, a Henson 9000 Smart Supra test (SS) supra-threshold test and Topcon Triton OCT scan: Smart Track 3D Wide (H) (12 × 9). OCT data were classified by 3 experts as either no glaucoma (n=42), suspect (n=6), or glaucoma (n=43). Overall and Selective global indices and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis were used to compare visual field outcomes with OCT classifications.
resultsSS was significantly faster than SITA standard (3.9 vs. 6 min). Sixty-one percent of the glaucoma sample and 81% of controls showed substantial agreement between OCT and visual field testing using the most sensitive criteria (Henson-N-miss SS, stage 2 and 3, >0 misses; HFA VFI <99%). The area under the ROC curve showed good discrimination for all global indices. The 24-2 global indices MD, PSD, and VFI ranged from 86% to 89%, whereas those for the SS test ranged from 84% to 88%. Partial area under the ROC curve (80%-100% specificity) showed a fall for all global indices. HFA MD, PSD and VFI range (61%-73%), SS test range (71%-78%).
conclusionsThe SS supra-threshold test was faster and had equivalent diagnostic accuracy to the SITA standard 24-2 threshold test in early/suspect glaucoma.
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.