ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Agreements between 24-2 and 24-2 C test grids for chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine retinopathy patients and high-risk patients.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the SITA Standard 24-2 and SITA Faster 24-2 C tests in patients with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) retinopathy and those at high risk.
methodsA prospective, cross-sectional study of 75 participants who underwent CQ/HCQ retinopathy screening using the SITA Standard 24-2, SITA Faster 24-2 C, optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence, and a dilated eye examination on the same day. Participants were categorized into retinopathy and non-retinopathy groups by graders. The agreement between the two visual field (VF) tests was assessed using Bland-Altman plots.
resultsAmong the 75 participants, 10 (13.3%) were diagnosed with CQ/HCQ retinopathy. Bland-Altman plots show good agreement in median deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and central mean sensitivity (CMS) between tests. The concordance coefficient was 0.89-0.93. Significant differences in MD, PSD, and CMS were observed between the retinopathy and non-retinopathy groups for both VF tests (P ≤ 0.02). However, within each group, the results of both VF tests were comparable across all parameters (P = 0.12-0.79), except for PSD in the non-retinopathy group. The SITA Faster 24-2 C test had a significantly shorter testing duration.
conclusionsThe SITA Standard 24-2 and SITA Faster 24-2 C tests showed similar efficacy and strongly positive agreement in screening for CQ/HCQ retinopathy. However, the SITA Faster 24-2 C minimized the testing time. The addition of testing points within the central 10-degree field did not enhance the detection of CQ/HCQ retinopathy in the Thai population.
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.