Evaluating Time in Range for Visual Acuity and Macular Thickness as Outcome Measures for Randomized Clinical Trials

Purpose: To compare performance of time in range (TIR) with other traditional longitudinal outcome measures (change from baseline and area under the curve [AUC] for change). Methods: We used data from DRCR.net Randomized Clinical Trials (Protocol T, I and AC) for diabetic macular edema, with outcomes of visual acuity (VA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness (CST). Outcomes were calculated at one year, stratified by baseline VA (0-39, 40-59, 60-69, and ≥70 letters score). TIR-VA was defined as proportion of time with VA above threshold (64, 69, 74, 79, and 84), and TIR-CST as proportion of time with CST equal or less than threshold (250, 300, 350, and 400 µm). Performance was assessed based on effect size. Results: In Protocol T, TIR-VA had largest effect size when baseline VA was poor: TIR-VA 69 (0.655), AUC-VA (0.607), and change VA (0.557). When baseline VA was moderate and good, TIR-VA effect sizes were similar to AUC-VA and change-VA. When baseline VA was excellent, effect size was largest for TIR-VA 74 versus AUC-VA or change-VA (0.199 vs. 0.179 vs. 0.083). For CST outcomes, TIR-CST was similar to or better than AUC-CST and change-CST across most baseline VA strata. In Protocols I and AC, TIR outcomes also had similar or larger effect size than AUC and change. Conclusions: TIR-VA and TIR-CST performed well across baseline VA strata and across RCTs. Translational Relevance: TIR-VA and TIR-CST may be complementary outcome measures for future RCTs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Translational Vision Science & Technology
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.15.8.12
Primary Topic
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Time in Range for Visual Acuity and Macular Thickness as Outcome Measures for Randomized Clinical Trials

Meet Panjwani, Robert Wu, Igor Kozak, Jonathan M. Holmes
Translational Vision Science & Technology
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
article

Evaluating Time in Range for Visual Acuity and Macular Thickness as Outcome Measures for Randomized Clinical Trials

Meet Panjwani, Robert Wu, Igor Kozak, Jonathan M. Holmes
article en

Abstract

Purpose: To compare performance of time in range (TIR) with other traditional longitudinal outcome measures (change from baseline and area under the curve [AUC] for change). Methods: We used data from DRCR.net Randomized Clinical Trials (Protocol T, I and AC) for diabetic macular edema, with outcomes of visual acuity (VA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) central subfield thickness (CST). Outcomes were calculated at one year, stratified by baseline VA (0-39, 40-59, 60-69, and ≥70 letters score). TIR-VA was defined as proportion of time with VA above threshold (64, 69, 74, 79, and 84), and TIR-CST as proportion of time with CST equal or less than threshold (250, 300, 350, and 400 µm). Performance was assessed based on effect size. Results: In Protocol T, TIR-VA had largest effect size when baseline VA was poor: TIR-VA 69 (0.655), AUC-VA (0.607), and change VA (0.557). When baseline VA was moderate and good, TIR-VA effect sizes were similar to AUC-VA and change-VA. When baseline VA was excellent, effect size was largest for TIR-VA 74 versus AUC-VA or change-VA (0.199 vs. 0.179 vs. 0.083). For CST outcomes, TIR-CST was similar to or better than AUC-CST and change-CST across most baseline VA strata. In Protocols I and AC, TIR outcomes also had similar or larger effect size than AUC and change. Conclusions: TIR-VA and TIR-CST performed well across baseline VA strata and across RCTs. Translational Relevance: TIR-VA and TIR-CST may be complementary outcome measures for future RCTs.

Translational Vision Science & TechnologyVol. 15(8)
University of Arizona (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Retinal Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.