ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2012
[Conventional perimetry. Antiquated or indispensable for functional glaucoma diagnostics?].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative glaucomatous diagnosis using macular optical coherence tomography and perimetry with centrally condensed stimuli: English version.Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016Article
- [Correlation of morphological and functional glaucoma diagnostics with macular OCT and perimetry with centrally condensed stimuli: German version].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2015Review
- [Functional diagnostic options for advanced and end stage glaucoma].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite its relatively long history conventional perimetry has preserved its role in (glaucoma) diagnostics by the continuous advancement of technical equipment, examination strategies and new methods for analysis and visualization of progression. A high standardization in execution and evaluation of visual field examination can now be obtained by the increasing use of computer technology. Standardized protocols become increasingly more useful especially in cases of chronic diseases, such as glaucoma where several suitable diagnostic methods must be applied over a long time period. For the assessment of functional deterioration several (numeric) perimetric indices are available in addition to clinical evaluation. The use of fast threshold estimating strategies and locally condensed grids are promising tools for early detection of the functional manifestation or progression of (glaucomatous) loss of visual field. In cases of advanced (glaucomatous) visual field loss, perimetry with (computer generated) moving stimuli (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) allows an efficient, standardized and patient-friendly edge detection of scotoma borders. This method is also very well suited for expert opinions and ability testing. The assessment by morphological or morphometric, hydrodynamic and other functional parameters serve as complementary diagnostic aids or as elementary tools for plausibility control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22527729What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.