ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Anatomy- versus Sensitivity-Based Loci Preselection in Detecting USH2A-Retinopathy Microperimetric Progression.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
Purpose: To compare microperimetry progression rate in Design: Cohort longitudinal study. Subjects: Seventeen eyes from 17 patients with biallelic pathogenic variants in Methods: Microperimetry was recorded using 10-2 grid. The grid was partitioned into 68 2° × 2° nonoverlapping squares, representing the retinal coverage of each locus. Four metrics were defined at baseline: (1) mean macular sensitivity (MMS): average sensitivity of all loci; (2) edge of scotoma sensitivity (ESS): average sensitivity of all loci adjacent to a scotomatous loci at baseline; (3) modified Rate of Progression in Main Outcome Measures: Trend- and event-based measures in MMS, ESS, mFTP, and HRS. Results: Seventeen patients (median age 37.0 years) had mean baseline values of 9.7 dB, 9.2 dB, 17.9 dB, and 13.1 dB for MMS, ESS, mFTP, and HRS, respectively. Using all longitudinal data (mean follow-up 4.0 years), trend analysis showed mFTP progression rate (-1.53 ± 1.37 dB/year) was significantly faster than MMS (-0.51 ± 0.63 dB/year) and ESS (-1.11 ± 1.23 dB/year) but similar to HRS (-1.29 ± 1.41 dB/year). Edge of scotoma sensitivity was more prone to floor effect and had lower baseline sensitivity than mFTP and HRS. In event-based analysis, the proportion of eyes that demonstrated clinically significant mean change was similar between ESS (2-year 36.4%, overall 45.5%), mFTP (2-year 33.3%, overall 43.8%), and HRS (2-year 28.5%, overall 42.9%) but noticeable less in MMS (2-year 13.3%, overall 12.5%). Conclusions: Hyperautofluorescent ring sensitivity and mFTP showed comparable performance in both trend- and event-based analyses, superior to that of MMS and ESS. Additional advantage of mFTP is inclusion of patients without the autofluorescent ring. Financial Disclosures: 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.