ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2026
Glaucoma Progression Detection Time Using OCT and OCTA in African and European Descendants.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- APSified Peripapillary Vessel Density in Glaucoma Suspects and Open-Angle Glaucoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess time to detection of glaucoma progression using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA) among individuals of African descent (AD) and European descent (ED).
designRetrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: AD and ED glaucoma subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) with ≥2-year and 4 visits of OCT and OCTA imaging.
methodsLinear mixed effects model-derived OCT and OCTA variability estimates were used to simulate longitudinal data by race. We performed 2 assessments on the time to detect trend-based glaucoma progression (ie, significantly negative OCT and OCTA slope): in assessment I (racial comparison within modality), "standardized simulation" assumed the same, standardized OCT and OCTA baseline and slopes for both races, whereas "real-world simulation" used real-world racial cohort-derived baseline and slopes. In assessment II (modality comparison within race), simulation was performed with real-world racial cohort-derived OCT and OCTA baseline and quartile (p25/p50/p75) change rates. The required time and 2- and 5-year rates of progression detection using OCT and OCTA in individual races was evaluated.
resultsWe included 48 AD eyes (31 subjects) and 120 ED eyes (77 subjects), of which baseline age and VF severity were similar. In assessment I standardized simulation, with assumed OCT and OCTA slopes of -0.5 to -2.0 units/year, the time to OCT progression detection ranged from 2.4 to 5.2 years in ED and 2.6 to 5.6 years in AD (difference: <0.4 years). For OCTA, the time to progression ranged from 2.3 to 4.9 years in ED and 2.4 to 5.0 years in AD (difference: <0.2 years). In real-world simulation, with OCT slopes of -0.38 and -0.52 µm/y, the time to OCT progression was 7.0 and 5.1 years for AD and ED, respectively. For OCTA, with slopes of -0.56%/y and -0.77%/y, the time to progression was 4.3 and 3.9 years for AD and ED, respectively. In assessment II, compared with OCT, OCTA showed shorter time to progression detection (difference: 0.4-2.6 years) and higher progression rates in both races.
conclusionsUsing computer simulation, there was no racial difference in OCT and OCTA time to progression detection between AD and ED. Moreover, OCTA showed shorter time and higher rate of progression detection than OCT in both races. Although its clinical importance remains to be confirmed, our findings suggest an ancillary role of OCTA to OCT when capturing glaucoma progression across races.
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.