ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Power and clinical utility of mesopic microperimetry analysis strategies in age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. 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.
- Mesopic microperimetry in Stargardt disease: Application and reliability.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Trial
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
purposeThis study evaluates whether mesopic microperimetry (MMP) provides a more robust measure of retinal function compared to visual acuity (VA) in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) clinical trials, with a focus on optimal analysis strategies.
methodFellow-eyes of unilateral neovascular AMD were prospectively studied. Presenting VA was measured. The Macular Integrity Assessment Microperimeter (MAIA) was used with a 4 to 2 staircase strategy with a 10° diameter grid containing 37 loci. Three analysis strategies were calculated: the mean of 37 sensitivity thresholds (MS), the per cent reduced threshold (PRT), and the log-transformed candela mean (MS cd log). Sample size requirements were calculated for 12- and 24-month follow-ups using a paired one-sided T-test (α = 0.05, power = 0.80).
resultsN = 123 were analysed (82 (65.5%) females; mean age 74.2 (7.8) years). Ranked high to low, the required sample size at 12 months was: MS (n = 51), MS cd log (n = 52), PRT (n = 139), and VA (n = 203). Similar trends were seen at 24 months, with MS requiring the smallest sample size (n = 85) and VA the largest (n = 1673).
conclusionAll MMP analysis strategies outperformed VA, and MS required the least number of patients to show significant changes. This trend was consistent for both 12 and 24 months. These findings provide strong statistical arguments for the use of MMP in longitudinal within-subjects clinical trials and suggest that averaging decibels is optimal.
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.