ArticlePloS one2026
Clinical characteristics and microperimetry of patients with myopic maculopathy referred to vision rehabilitation compared to age related macular degeneration.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myopic maculopathy (MM) is a progressive degenerative change of the retina and choroid associated with high myopia leading to central vision loss. The burden of MM is anticipated to increase due to the rising prevalence of myopia globally. Patients with MM are often referred for vision rehabilitation (VR) to help adapt to visual impairment. VR aims to allow patients to continue performing tasks and remain safe despite vision loss, typically through training with optical devices, assistive technology, or new strategies. This study compares the presenting clinical characteristics and VR process of patients with MM to patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the latter being the most common diagnosis of patients referred for VR. This retrospective chart review included 32 consecutive patients with MM and 32 randomly selected patients with AMD referred for VR. Only patients with visual acuity in either eye better than 20/200 were included to represent the early stage of both disease processes. Available microperimetry data were collected for all eyes with a visual acuity better than 20/200 and graded for the presence of scotomas by two independent reviewers. Patients with MM were significantly younger (p < 0.0001) than those with AMD (mean age 68.0 vs 81.6 years respectively). Reported priority goals for vision rehabilitation showed a significant trend: patients with MM and moderate acuity prioritized daily living tasks more frequently (67%, p = 0.0045) than patients with AMD. At good acuity (>20/50), dense paracentral scotomas trended towards being more prevalent amongst patients with MM compared to moderate acuity (between 20/50 and 20/200) where central scotomas were more prevalent amongst patients with AMD. Patients with early MM have unique characteristics at presentation for VR compared to patients with AMD. It is important for providers to be aware of the visual challenges faced by younger patients with paracentral scotomas, which may warrant VR referral even when visual acuity is good.
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.