ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2013
Comparison of clinician-predicted to measured low vision outcomes.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approaching rehabilitation in patients with advanced glaucoma.Eye (London, England) · 2023Review
- Using Electronic Clinical Decision Support to Examine Vision Rehabilitation Referrals and Practice Guidelines in Ophthalmology.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- The NEI VFQ-25C: Calibrating Items in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 to Enable Comparison of Outcome Measures.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon Sensors to Document Handheld Magnifier Use at Home by People with Low Vision.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Multivariable Regression Model of the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire in Patients Seeking Outpatient Low Vision Rehabilitation.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2017Observational
- The Treatment Paradigm for the Implantable Miniature Telescope.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2016Review
- Clinically Meaningful Rehabilitation Outcomes of Low Vision Patients Served by Outpatient Clinical Centers.JAMA ophthalmology · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) clinicians' predictions of the probability of success of LVR with patients' self-reported outcomes after provision of usual outpatient LVR services and to determine if patients' traits influence clinician ratings.
methodsThe Activity Inventory (AI), a self-report visual function questionnaire, was administered pre-and post-LVR to 316 low-vision patients served by 28 LVR centers that participated in a collaborative observational study. The physical component of the Short Form-36, Geriatric Depression Scale, and Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status were also administered pre-LVR to measure physical capability, depression, and cognitive status. After patient evaluation, 38 LVR clinicians estimated the probability of outcome success (POS) using their own criteria. The POS ratings and change in functional ability were used to assess the effects of patients' baseline traits on predicted outcomes.
resultsA regression analysis with a hierarchical random-effects model showed no relationship between LVR physician POS estimates and AI-based outcomes. In another analysis, kappa statistics were calculated to determine the probability of agreement between POS and AI-based outcomes for different outcome criteria. Across all comparisons, none of the kappa values were significantly different from 0, which indicates that the rate of agreement is equivalent to chance. In an exploratory analysis, hierarchical mixed-effects regression models show that POS ratings are associated with information about the patient's cognitive functioning and the combination of visual acuity and functional ability, as opposed to visual acuity or functional ability alone.
conclusionsClinicians' predictions of LVR outcomes seem to be influenced by knowledge of patients' cognitive functioning and the combination of visual acuity and functional ability-information clinicians acquire from the patient's history and examination. However, clinicians' predictions do not agree with observed changes in functional ability from the patient's perspective; they are no better than chance.
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.