Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby
[...]had the changes in the appearance of the optic disc or visual field not been further refined by the EPC “experts,” the recently published analysis2 indicates that the apparent size of the impact would have been considerably smaller, as IOP-lowering medication was unlikely to reduce the risk of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of ophthalmology 2020-01, Vol.209, p.1-2 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | American journal of ophthalmology |
| container_volume | 209 |
| creator | Sommer, Alfred |
| description | [...]had the changes in the appearance of the optic disc or visual field not been further refined by the EPC “experts,” the recently published analysis2 indicates that the apparent size of the impact would have been considerably smaller, as IOP-lowering medication was unlikely to reduce the risk of other causes of apparent visual field deterioration (age-related macular degeneration, retinopathy, droopy lid) or optic disc erosion (optic neuritis, and so forth). Because of the EPC the study outcome was more accurate, and glaucoma management was finally based upon hard, reliable data, not “clinical impression.” In 1 or more decades, new algorithms, based upon more readily quantifiable data collected from visual field and optical coherence tomography testing, and powered by artificial intelligence and deep learning, will probably do a better job at standardized, reproducible diagnoses than we now do, particularly when it comes to endpoints of interest in clinical trials. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.002 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2275269702</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002939419303253</els_id><sourcerecordid>2275269702</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-785129603ab4e6dfd42ed910d094517a04aa71d18d5610b516f63fdd5f4f2e503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PGzEQQC1ERQLtD-CCVuJQDux2xt5dx-2pRFCQInFJlaPlrGcbr_Yj2Buk_PsaAj1w6Mka683T6DF2jpAhYPmtyUwzZBxQZSAzAH7EpjiTKsWZwmM2hfiVKqHyCTsNoYljKXN5wiYCcw6giimTj9vNuDFt56pk3rreVaZNlt6ZNnxPVvT1mZL50FFiksXQ_0lWZn-d3Jj1_jP7VEeGvry9Z-z33e1yfp8uHn89zH8u0koIMaZyViBXJQizzqm0tc05WYVgQeUFSgO5MRItzmxRIqwLLOtS1NYWdV5zKkCcsauDd-uHpx2FUXcuVNS2pqdhFzTnsuClksAjevkBbYad7-N1mgsuhJICVaTwQFV-CMFTrbfedcbvNYJ-qaobHavql6oapIZX88WbebfuyP7beM8YgR8HgGKKZ0deh8pRX5F1nqpR28H9R_8X-weDZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2323397319</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Sommer, Alfred</creator><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Alfred</creatorcontrib><description>[...]had the changes in the appearance of the optic disc or visual field not been further refined by the EPC “experts,” the recently published analysis2 indicates that the apparent size of the impact would have been considerably smaller, as IOP-lowering medication was unlikely to reduce the risk of other causes of apparent visual field deterioration (age-related macular degeneration, retinopathy, droopy lid) or optic disc erosion (optic neuritis, and so forth). Because of the EPC the study outcome was more accurate, and glaucoma management was finally based upon hard, reliable data, not “clinical impression.” In 1 or more decades, new algorithms, based upon more readily quantifiable data collected from visual field and optical coherence tomography testing, and powered by artificial intelligence and deep learning, will probably do a better job at standardized, reproducible diagnoses than we now do, particularly when it comes to endpoints of interest in clinical trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31420095</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bias ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Endpoint Determination ; Financial disclosure ; Glaucoma ; Glaucoma, Open-Angle - diagnosis ; Glaucoma, Open-Angle - physiopathology ; Humans ; Intraocular Pressure - physiology ; Ophthalmology ; Optic nerve ; Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis ; Optic Nerve Diseases - physiopathology ; Reading</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 2020-01, Vol.209, p.1-2</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2019. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-785129603ab4e6dfd42ed910d094517a04aa71d18d5610b516f63fdd5f4f2e503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31420095$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Alfred</creatorcontrib><title>Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>[...]had the changes in the appearance of the optic disc or visual field not been further refined by the EPC “experts,” the recently published analysis2 indicates that the apparent size of the impact would have been considerably smaller, as IOP-lowering medication was unlikely to reduce the risk of other causes of apparent visual field deterioration (age-related macular degeneration, retinopathy, droopy lid) or optic disc erosion (optic neuritis, and so forth). Because of the EPC the study outcome was more accurate, and glaucoma management was finally based upon hard, reliable data, not “clinical impression.” In 1 or more decades, new algorithms, based upon more readily quantifiable data collected from visual field and optical coherence tomography testing, and powered by artificial intelligence and deep learning, will probably do a better job at standardized, reproducible diagnoses than we now do, particularly when it comes to endpoints of interest in clinical trials.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>Financial disclosure</subject><subject>Glaucoma</subject><subject>Glaucoma, Open-Angle - diagnosis</subject><subject>Glaucoma, Open-Angle - physiopathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intraocular Pressure - physiology</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Optic nerve</subject><subject>Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Optic Nerve Diseases - physiopathology</subject><subject>Reading</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><issn>1879-1891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1PGzEQQC1ERQLtD-CCVuJQDux2xt5dx-2pRFCQInFJlaPlrGcbr_Yj2Buk_PsaAj1w6Mka683T6DF2jpAhYPmtyUwzZBxQZSAzAH7EpjiTKsWZwmM2hfiVKqHyCTsNoYljKXN5wiYCcw6giimTj9vNuDFt56pk3rreVaZNlt6ZNnxPVvT1mZL50FFiksXQ_0lWZn-d3Jj1_jP7VEeGvry9Z-z33e1yfp8uHn89zH8u0koIMaZyViBXJQizzqm0tc05WYVgQeUFSgO5MRItzmxRIqwLLOtS1NYWdV5zKkCcsauDd-uHpx2FUXcuVNS2pqdhFzTnsuClksAjevkBbYad7-N1mgsuhJICVaTwQFV-CMFTrbfedcbvNYJ-qaobHavql6oapIZX88WbebfuyP7beM8YgR8HgGKKZ0deh8pRX5F1nqpR28H9R_8X-weDZQ</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Sommer, Alfred</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby</title><author>Sommer, Alfred</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-785129603ab4e6dfd42ed910d094517a04aa71d18d5610b516f63fdd5f4f2e503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>Financial disclosure</topic><topic>Glaucoma</topic><topic>Glaucoma, Open-Angle - diagnosis</topic><topic>Glaucoma, Open-Angle - physiopathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intraocular Pressure - physiology</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Optic nerve</topic><topic>Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Optic Nerve Diseases - physiopathology</topic><topic>Reading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sommer, Alfred</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sommer, Alfred</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>209</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>2</epage><pages>1-2</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><eissn>1879-1891</eissn><abstract>[...]had the changes in the appearance of the optic disc or visual field not been further refined by the EPC “experts,” the recently published analysis2 indicates that the apparent size of the impact would have been considerably smaller, as IOP-lowering medication was unlikely to reduce the risk of other causes of apparent visual field deterioration (age-related macular degeneration, retinopathy, droopy lid) or optic disc erosion (optic neuritis, and so forth). Because of the EPC the study outcome was more accurate, and glaucoma management was finally based upon hard, reliable data, not “clinical impression.” In 1 or more decades, new algorithms, based upon more readily quantifiable data collected from visual field and optical coherence tomography testing, and powered by artificial intelligence and deep learning, will probably do a better job at standardized, reproducible diagnoses than we now do, particularly when it comes to endpoints of interest in clinical trials.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31420095</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.002</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-9394 |
| ispartof | American journal of ophthalmology, 2020-01, Vol.209, p.1-2 |
| issn | 0002-9394 1879-1891 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2275269702 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Bias Clinical trials Clinical Trials as Topic Endpoint Determination Financial disclosure Glaucoma Glaucoma, Open-Angle - diagnosis Glaucoma, Open-Angle - physiopathology Humans Intraocular Pressure - physiology Ophthalmology Optic nerve Optic Nerve Diseases - diagnosis Optic Nerve Diseases - physiopathology Reading |
| title | Ophthalmic Clinical Trials: We've Come a Long Way, Baby |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T17%3A43%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ophthalmic%20Clinical%20Trials:%20We've%20Come%20a%20Long%20Way,%20Baby&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Sommer,%20Alfred&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=209&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=2&rft.pages=1-2&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft.eissn=1879-1891&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2275269702%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2323397319&rft_id=info:pmid/31420095&rft_els_id=S0002939419303253&rfr_iscdi=true |