ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Time to Identify Glaucoma Progression Given Typical Visual Field Testing Frequencies in a US Nationwide Insured Population.
Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. 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.
- Risk stratification of visual field progression in optic disc drusen with and without glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn a study using US nationwide claims data from 2008 to 2017, the median time between visual field tests for patients with glaucoma was once every 1.59 years (interquartile range: 1.14-3.03 years). This is less frequent than the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO)-recommended minimum annual screening. We conducted simulation modeling using clinical data to determine how long it would take to identify trend-based glaucoma visual field progression at this testing frequency and compare it to AAO-recommended annual screening.
designSimulation modeling using retrospective clinical data. SUBJECTS: Patients with glaucoma in the Duke Glaucoma Registry (DGR).
methodsTo determine how long it would take to identify glaucoma progression at testing frequencies in this insured US nationwide population, we conducted simulation modeling using clinical visual field data from the DGR. Models were created to evaluate the time it would take to identify progression for patients with testing frequency at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles in the previously published US nationwide claims data and at the AAO-recommended minimum annual screening. The simulations assumed baseline mean deviation (MD) of -5, -10, or -15 decibels (dB) and a true rate of progression of -0.5 or -1.0 dB/year. Progression was defined as having a negative MD slope estimate with a P value <0.05. We simulated 1000 sequences of visual fields for each test group.
main outcome measuresTime to detect glaucoma progression
resultsAcross the testing scenarios, the time to detect progression in 80% of eyes ranged from 15.2 to 24.3 years for patients receiving visual field testing at the 25th percentile (3.03 years between tests), 9.6 to 17.5 years for patients receiving visual field testing at the 50th percentile (1.59 years between tests), 8.0 to 14.9 years for patients receiving visual field testing at the 75th percentile (1.14 years between tests), and 7.1 to 14.1 years for patients receiving annual testing.
conclusionsThese results suggest that either visual field testing needs to be done more frequently or other methods of identification of progressive glaucoma vision loss need to be developed. Clinical decision support systems could help tailor the frequency of visual field testing to the needs of individual patients. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): 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.