Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24342021›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2014

Association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States.

Mary Qiu, Sophia Y Wang, Kuldev Singh, Shan C Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Saccadic Reaction Times and Computational Modelling Reveal Heterogeneous Binocular Summation in Glaucomatous Visual Fields.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary QiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Sophia Y WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Kuldev SinghDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Shan C LinDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: lins@vision.ucsf.edu.
University of California, San Francisco · USStanford University · US

Funding

Rapid-Prototyping and Design CoreP30EY002162 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LAKKARAJU, APARNA · 1985 to 2024
$16.8M
Clinical and Transtional Science InstituteTL1TR000144 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GRANDIS, JENNIFER RUBIN · 2012 to 2015
$643k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000144NCATS NIH HHS TL1TR000144NEI NIH HHS EY002162NEI NIH HHS P30 EY002162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States population.

designCross-sectional study.

participantsA total of 5186 participants in the 2005 through 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 40 years of age and older without a self-reported history of age-related macular degeneration or prior refractive surgery who had undergone frequency doubling technology perimetric testing.

methodsFrequency doubling technology perimetry was performed in both eyes. Results from the better eye were used to categorize subjects as normal or having mild, moderate, or severe visual field loss. Subjects completed surveys about their visual and physical functioning ability.

main outcome measuresDisability pertaining to 6 vision-related activities, 2 visual function questions, and 5 physical functioning domains.

resultsEighty-one percent of subjects had normal visual fields and 10%, 7%, and 2% demonstrated mild, moderate, and severe visual field defects, respectively. Subjects with greater severity of visual field defects had greater difficulty with vision-related activities. Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with all 6 activities. The 2 activities impacted most adversely were daytime driving in familiar places (odds ratio [OR], 12.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-25.1) and noticing objects off to the side when walking (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 4.7-12.7). Subjects with severe visual field defects had greater odds of worrying about eyesight (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.0-5.8) and being limited by vision in the time spent on daily activities (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.0-8.5). Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with 3 physical function domains, including activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), as well as leisure and social activities (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.87-5.77).

conclusionsGreater severity of visual field abnormality was associated with significantly greater odds of disability with vision-related function and physical function. These findings support the necessity of routine screening to find those who may benefit from therapy to prevent progressive glaucomatous vision loss.

Indexed as

Visual FieldsVisual Field TestsActivities of Daily LivingCross-Sectional StudiesDisability EvaluationFemaleGlaucomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysPrevalenceQuality of LifeSickness Impact ProfileUnited StatesVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID24342021
PMCPMC3943627
OpenAlexW2046290421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.