Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25162522›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Binocular glaucomatous visual field loss and its impact on visual exploration--a supermarket study.

Katrin Sippel, Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Aehling, Martin Heister, Wolfgang Rosenstiel, Ulrich Schiefer, Elena Papageorgiou

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Glaucoma-Related Differences in Gaze Behavior When Negotiating Obstacles.Translational vision science & technology · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Impact of Glaucoma and Dry Eye on Text-Based Searching.Translational vision science & technology · 2017
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Katrin SippelComputer Engineering Department, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Enkelejda KasneciComputer Engineering Department, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Kathrin AehlingCentre for Ophthalmology, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Martin HeisterCentre for Ophthalmology, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Wolfgang RosenstielComputer Engineering Department, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Ulrich SchieferCentre for Ophthalmology, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Competence Centre "Vision Research", Study Course "Ophthalmic Optics/Audiology", University of Applied Sciences Aalen, Aalen, Germany.
Elena PapageorgiouCentre for Ophthalmology, Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, United Kingdom.
University of Tübingen · DELeicester Royal Infirmary · GBSTZ eyetrial · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced glaucomatous visual field loss may critically interfere with quality of life. The purpose of this study was to (i) assess the impact of binocular glaucomatous visual field loss on a supermarket search task as an example of everyday living activities, (ii) to identify factors influencing the performance, and (iii) to investigate the related compensatory mechanisms. Ten patients with binocular glaucoma (GP), and ten healthy-sighted control subjects (GC) were asked to collect twenty different products chosen randomly in two supermarket racks as quickly as possible. The task performance was rated as "passed" or "failed" with regard to the time per correctly collected item. Based on the performance of control subjects, the threshold value for failing the task was defined as μ+3σ (in seconds per correctly collected item). Eye movements were recorded by means of a mobile eye tracker. Eight out of ten patients with glaucoma and all control subjects passed the task. Patients who failed the task needed significantly longer time (111.47 s ±12.12 s) to complete the task than patients who passed (64.45 s ±13.36 s, t-test, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients who passed the task showed a significantly higher number of glances towards the visual field defect (VFD) area than patients who failed (t-test, p < 0.05). According to these results, glaucoma patients with defects in the binocular visual field display on average longer search times in a naturalistic supermarket task. However, a considerable number of patients, who compensate by frequent glancing towards the VFD, showed successful task performance. Therefore, systematic exploration of the VFD area seems to be a "time-effective" compensatory mechanism during the present supermarket task.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalVisual FieldsActivities of Daily LivingAgedCase-Control StudiesEye MovementsFemaleGlaucomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPattern Recognition, VisualQuality of LifeReaction TimeScotoma

Identifiers

PMID25162522
PMCPMC4146567
OpenAlexW2031541326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.