ArticlePloS one2014
The relationship between central visual field damage and motor vehicle collisions in primary open-angle glaucoma patients.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The association between road traffic accidents and visual functions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Visual Field Loss and Self-Reported Driving Restriction in Glaucoma.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improving the robustness of the Sequentially Optimized Reconstruction Strategy (SORS) for visual field testing.PloS one · 2024Article
- Predictive Value of the Esterman Visual Field Test on the Outcome of the On-Road Driving Test.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Effects of driver compensatory behaviour on risks of critical pedestrian collisions under simulated visual field defects.PloS one · 2020Article
- Stage of visual field loss and age at diagnosis in 1988 patients with different glaucomas: implications for glaucoma screening and driving ability.International ophthalmology · 2018Article
- The role of specific visual subfields in collisions with oncoming cars during simulated driving in patients with advanced glaucoma.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Predicting Future Self-Reported Motor Vehicle Collisions in Subjects with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Using the Penalized Support Vector Machine Method.Translational vision science & technology · 2017Article
- Self-reported vs state-recorded motor vehicle collisions among older community dwelling individuals.Accident; analysis and prevention · 2017Article
- Association between Glaucoma and At-fault Motor Vehicle Collision Involvement among Older Drivers: A Population-based Study.Ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Risk Factors for Motor Vehicle Collisions in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.PloS one · 2016Article
- Glaucoma and Driving License: How to Identify Patients at Risk of Revocation.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the relationship between visual field (VF) damage and history of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
methodsMVC history and driving habits were recorded using patient questionnaires in 247 POAG patients. Patients' driving attitudes (carefulness) were estimated using Rasch analysis. The relationship between MVC outcomes and 52 total deviation (TD) values of integrated binocular VF (IVF), better and worse visual acuities (VAs), age and gender was analyzed using principal component analysis and logistic regression.
results51 patients had the history of MVCs. Significant difference was observed between patients with and without history of MVCs only for: better VA, a single TD value in the superior-right VF, and the typical distance driven in a week (unpaired t-test, p = 0.002, 0.015 and 0.006, respectively). There was not a significant relationship between MVCs and mean deviation (MD) of IVF (p = 0.41, logistic regression). None of the principal components were significantly correlated with MVC outcome (p>0.05, polynomial logistic regression analysis). There was a significant relationship between IVF MD and Rasch derived Person parameter (R2 = 0.023, p = 0.0095). There was also a significant positive relationship between MVCs and the distance driven in a week (p = 0.005, logistic regression).
conclusionsIn this study of POAG patients, MVCs were not related to central binocular VF damage. These results suggest the relationship between visual function and driving is not straightforward, and careful consideration should be given when predicting patients' driving ability using their VF.
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.