ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2012
[Functional diagnostic options for advanced and end stage glaucoma].
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Visual Field Defects Obtained with Semiautomated Kinetic Perimetry in Patients with Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy.Journal of ophthalmology · 2018Article
- [Are diurnal and nocturnal intraocular pressure measurements over 48 h justified?].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The visual functional diagnostics for patients with advanced glaucomatous optic neuropathy are subject to challenge. Reduced visual acuity, instable fixation and extensive scotomata frequently lead to incorrect results within the central 30° or 24° field. Static automatic perimetry (SAP) in particular is often hampered by extended examination time and fatigue especially in older patients. Focusing of the examination towards the central 10° field using a dense test grid (2° distance between stimulus locations) allows a more exact assessment of the small remaining central island. Tailoring the examination area towards the central 10° field may be useful even in cases with a mean deviation (MD) of 15 dB. In cases of advanced visual field loss kinetic perimetry is superior to static perimetry for various reasons: sharply demarcated visual field defects can be comparatively easily delineated (edge detection); the results are more reliable because fixation can be easily controlled and fatigue is much less pronounced in this interactive examination procedure. However, manual kinetic visual field testing within the central 5° using the conventional Goldmann perimeter is almost impossible due to technical reasons. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry, presenting moving stimuli along interactively defined vectors is a useful tool under these circumstances. The standardized presentation of kinetic stimuli is also feasible within the pericentral region and has particular advantages also with regard to follow-up examinations. On the other hand, detection and delineation of small visual field remnants are comparatively difficult to handle with this kind of vector-based kinetic perimetry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.