Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41387359›Full record

ReviewClinical & experimental ophthalmology2026

Visual Function Assessment in Geographic Atrophy: A Review.

Ye Li, Lauren N Ayton, Adrian T Fung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ye LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Lauren N AytonDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9907-084X
Adrian T FungSave Sight Institute, Specialty of Clinical Ophthalmology and Eye Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geographic atrophy (GA) causes significant vision impairment and reduction in vision-related quality of life. Fundus autofluorescence (FAF) is the gold standard of structural assessment of GA but is a surrogate marker for vision loss, which can be assessed by tests of visual function and functional vision. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the most commonly used visual function test in ophthalmology, is a poor metric for assessing GA progression. This is because GA usually only affects the fovea in its late stage, grows slowly, and spared areas of retina may not 'fit' larger reading chart letters, confounding measurements. For this reason, tests of visual function have been developed, including low luminance visual acuity (LLVA), reading speed, contrast sensitivity, microperimetry, flicker perimetry, and dark adaptation. Functional vision measures are approximated through patient-reported outcomes using various questionnaires. This review explores the strength of association between FAF and tests of visual function in patients with GA. A range of targeted, prespecified endpoints of visual function testing should be included in future clinical trials for treatments of GA, focusing on GA lesion phenotypes that are known to progress rapidly in order to maximise the likelihood of identifying positive results. This is critical in jurisdictions where proof of functional benefit is required for regulatory approval of treatments for GA.

Indexed as

Geographic AtrophyVisual AcuityContrast SensitivityDark AdaptationFluorescein AngiographyHumansQuality of LifeTomography, Optical CoherenceVision TestsVisual FieldsVisual Field Testsfunctional visiongeographic atrophyvision function

Identifiers

PMID41387359
PMCPMC12976467

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.