ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Evaluating Time in Range for Visual Acuity and Macular Thickness as Outcome Measures for Randomized Clinical Trials.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare performance of time in range (TIR) with other traditional longitudinal outcome measures (change from baseline and area under the curve [AUC] for change). Methods: We used data from DRCR.net Randomized Clinical Trials (Protocol T, I and AC) for diabetic macular edema, with outcomes of visual acuity (VA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness (CST). Outcomes were calculated at one year, stratified by baseline VA (0-39, 40-59, 60-69, and ≥70 letters score). TIR-VA was defined as proportion of time with VA above threshold (64, 69, 74, 79, and 84), and TIR-CST as proportion of time with CST equal or less than threshold (250, 300, 350, and 400 µm). Performance was assessed based on effect size. Results: In Protocol T, TIR-VA had largest effect size when baseline VA was poor: TIR-VA 69 (0.655), AUC-VA (0.607), and change VA (0.557). When baseline VA was moderate and good, TIR-VA effect sizes were similar to AUC-VA and change-VA. When baseline VA was excellent, effect size was largest for TIR-VA 74 versus AUC-VA or change-VA (0.199 vs. 0.179 vs. 0.083). For CST outcomes, TIR-CST was similar to or better than AUC-CST and change-CST across most baseline VA strata. In Protocols I and AC, TIR outcomes also had similar or larger effect size than AUC and change. Conclusions: TIR-VA and TIR-CST performed well across baseline VA strata and across RCTs. Translational Relevance: TIR-VA and TIR-CST may be complementary outcome measures for future RCTs.
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.