ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
The Usefulness of Inclusion of Visual Field Tests Using Multiple Testing Strategies in Perimetric Rate of Progression Analyses.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the use of a mixture of strategies (Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm [SITA] Fast and Standard) when conducting the mean total deviation (mTD) trend analysis. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from 128 eyes of 95 patients with open-angle glaucoma with at least 5 SITA Fast visual field (VF) followed by 5 SITA Standard VFs. First, the mTD of a fifth future VF in 5.3 years was predicted using various numbers (from 1-2 to 1-4) of SITA Standard VFs. Similar prediction calculations were performed simultaneously using the SITA Fast VFs before the SITA Standard VFs. Furthermore, this calculation was iterated by adjusting for the difference between the SITA Fast and SITA Standard. Results: Without SITA Fast VFs, the means of prediction errors were 10.40 and 4.44 decibels (dB) with 2 and 3 SITA Standard VFs, respectively. These values significantly decreased to 2.83 and 2.40 dB with SITA Fast VFs without adjusting for the difference between SITA Fast and Standard VFs. The values after adjusting for the difference between SITA Fast and Standard VFs were 2.88 and 2.39 dB, respectively, which were not significantly different. With 4 SITA Standard VFs, the prediction errors varied between 2.12 and 2.34 dB across the 3 methods; however, they were not significantly different from each other. Conclusions: It is useful to add information from prior SITA Fast VFs when conducting mTD trend analysis with SITA Standard VFs. Translational Relevance: It is clinically beneficial to include both SITA Standard and Fast VFs in mTD trend analysis.
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.