ArticleJournal of glaucoma
Contrasting the use of 2 vision-specific quality of life questionnaires in subjects with open-angle glaucoma.
Article in Journal of glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- A Review of Studies of the Association of Vision-Related Quality of Life with Measures of Visual Function and Structure in Patients with Glaucoma in the United States.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2021Review
- "The patient is speaking": discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2017Review
- Comparison of vision-related quality of life in primary open-angle glaucoma and dry-type age-related macular degeneration.Eye (London, England) · 2017Article
- Vision-related Quality of Life in Glaucoma Suspect or Early Glaucoma Patients.Journal of glaucoma · 2016Article
- Incorporating life expectancy in glaucoma care.Eye (London, England) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare 2 vision-specific functional status measures to each other and to clinical parameters in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS).
methodsCIGTS participants completed the Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ) and the National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) and were tested for visual field (VF) and visual acuity (VA). In all, 426 subjects contributed the VAQ and NEI-VFQ scores at 54 months. Pearson correlations were used to assess associations.
resultsThe VAQ subscales (range, 0 to 100) that assessed light-dark adaptation (mean=66.1), glare disability (66.4), and acuity/spatial vision (67.7) indicated vision-related functions that CIGTS participants found most difficult. On the NEI-VFQ, subjects reported high levels of visual functioning, with mean >/=90 (out of 100) on the total score and in 9 of 12 subscales. General vision (mean=82.6) received the lowest subscale score. Two subscales common to both questionnaires were highly correlated: VA (r=0.68) and peripheral vision (r=0.77) (both P<0.0001). Correlations between participants' perceptions and clinical measures of visual function were in the expected direction, but weaker. Stronger associations were found between clinical measures and the NEI-VFQ than the VAQ. Better eye VF and worse eye VA had the highest number of significant correlations with subjects' perceptions of their visual function. Increasing VF loss was associated with a significant decrease in the overall and peripheral vision subscale scores from both questionnaires, and also several other subscales.
conclusionsCIGTS patients reported excellent visual function on both the NEI-VFQ and VAQ. These findings will help researchers interested in assessing patients' perceptions of their visual function make an informed selection when choosing between the VAQ and the NEI-VFQ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.