ArticleScientific reports2026
Estimation of glaucomatous impairment in the visual field, excluding the effect of posterior capsule opacification.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) significantly hinders the accurate assessment of glaucomatous visual field (VF) impairment. While pattern deviation (PD) is theoretically intended to correct for generalized sensitivity loss, its accuracy in eyes with PCO remains unverified. This study evaluated 52 eyes of 46 patients with open-angle glaucoma and PCO. Following laser capsulotomy, visual acuity significantly improved from 0.22 to 0.10 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (P < 0.01), and mean total deviation (mTD) improved from - 8.89 dB to -6.46 dB (P < 0.01). This post-capsulotomy mTD served as the reference for true impairment. A linear regression model incorporating pre-capsulotomy visual acuity and mTD was developed and validated using leave-one-out cross-validation. The absolute estimation error of this model was significantly smaller (median: 1.66 dB [interquartile range: 1.04-2.77 dB]) compared to that of PD (2.14 dB [1.10-3.99 dB], P < 0.01). Notably, PD-based errors were significantly influenced by both glaucoma severity and the degree of PCO-induced sensitivity loss, resulting in substantial underestimation in advanced cases. These findings indicate that PD is prone to inaccuracy in eyes with PCO, whereas the regression model offers a more precise estimation.
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.