ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Exploring fundus-controlled mesopic and scotopic perimetry in inherited retinal disease.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMicroperimetry is increasingly used as an outcome measure in clinical trials for retinal disease. This study compares mesopic and scotopic microperimetry in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with inherited retinal disease to assess their suitability as clinical trial outcome measures and to determine the most appropriate testing modality.
methodsParticipants completed mesopic and scotopic microperimetry (S-MAIA) after 20 min of dark adaptation, as part of the Visual Function in Retinal Degeneration study (ISRCTN24016133). Testing was performed on both eyes (right first) without formal pupil dilation. Reliability and sensitivity performance were explored. A subset of participants (n = 23 patients and n = 16 controls) underwent repeat scotopic testing for repeatability analyses.
resultsTwenty-nine participants with inherited retinal disease and 40 healthy control participants completed microperimetry testing. Mesopic microperimetry in patients and in healthy controls showed good reliability and sensitivity performance. Scotopic microperimetry in patient participants was limited by poor test reliability, reflected by a high number of test exclusions from reliability screening, and significant floor effects in measured sensitivity. In addition, scotopic microperimetry showed no greater improvement in sensitivity or specificity than mesopic microperimetry. Repeatability analyses were limited by the small sample size following elimination of unreliable tests.
conclusionMesopic microperimetry is recommended as a stable and reliable outcome measure. Scotopic microperimetry appears to be limited by poor reliability and floor effects in patients with inherited retinal disease. The utility of scotopic microperimetry in patients with very early disease presentation, who present with highly preserved central vision (i.e. highly preserved mesopic microperimetry), remains unexplored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42087400What 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.