ArticleBMC research notes2026
Correlation between Humphrey Field Analyser perimetric outcomes and macular thickness in diabetic retinopathy patients, diabetic individuals without retinopathy, and control subjects in Trinidad and Tobago.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examined the relationship between visual field performance measured with the Humphrey Field Analyzer and macular thickness measured using optical coherence tomography across three groups: individuals without diabetes, individuals with diabetes but no diabetic retinopathy, and individuals with diabetic retinopathy. The aim was to determine whether structural and functional measures show meaningful associations within and across disease stages in a Trinidad and Tobago population.
resultsIn unadjusted comparisons, macular and visual-field measures differed across groups (all p < 0.001). After age adjustment, most between-group differences were no longer significant, and age independently predicted VFI, confirming age as a major confounder. Within-group, age-adjusted associations persisted in DR (OD): lower VFI correlated with greater superior (partial r = − 0.519, p = 0.027) and temporal ETDRS thickness (partial r = − 0.585, p = 0.011), and higher PSD correlated with greater superior (partial r = + 0.603, p = 0.013) and temporal thickness (partial r = + 0.592, p = 0.016); all four remained significant after FDR correction. Macular total volume showed limited functional relevance. In DM_no_DR (exploratory), small-sample regressions suggested similar direction, but estimates were imprecise. MD was not analyzed via ANCOVA due to incomplete data.
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.