ArticleOphthalmology science
Exploiting Microperimetry as a Functional End Point in Healthy Aging and Different Stages of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Choriocapillaris Flow-Enriched Prediction of Retinal Sensitivity Using OCT-Derived Biomarkers in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare functional parameters between healthy aged eyes and different stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) based on functional parameters in microperimetry (MP) in 2 commonly used MP devices. Design: A prospective, cross-sectional study. Subjects: From 80 eyes from 80 subjects, 14 400 stimuli points were included. Methods: Subjects classified as healthy, intermediate AMD, neovascular AMD (nAMD), or geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to AMD were imaged with Spectralis HRA+OCT (Heidelberg Engineering) and underwent 2 consecutive examinations each, using the MP-3 (NIDEK) under photopic conditions and the MAIA (Centervue) under mesopic conditions. Pointwise sensitivity (PWS), mean sensitivity, range between highest and lowest PWS, fixation stability, and examination duration were compared between all 4 groups in both devices. Group comparison was performed using linear mixed-effects models and a discriminant analysis to find the parameters that best discriminated the respective AMD stage. Main Outcome Measures: Pointwise sensitivity, range of the PWS, fixation metrics, and durations of the examinations. Results: The groups exhibited significant differences in PWS ( Conclusions: Retinal sensitivity declines with disease progression in AMD in both mesopic and photopic background illumination. The lowest retinal sensitivity was observed in patients with GA. Background illumination should be considered when selecting an MP device for a clinical trial. 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.