ArticleScientific reports2015
Motor function benefits of visual restoration measured in age-related cataract and simulated patients: Case-control and clinical experimental studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Functional Impacts of Vision Impairment: Progress, Challenges and Future Directions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Article
- The effects of blurred visual inputs with different levels on the cerebral activity during free level walking.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- [Effects of visual restoration on dynamic plantar pressure features in elder individuals].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2021Article
- Gait in Elderly Glaucoma: Impact of Lighting Conditions, Changes in Lighting, and Fear of Falling.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Subjective Happiness and Satisfaction in Postoperative Anisometropic Patients after Refractive Surgery for Myopia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to measure gait velocity in cataract and simulated patients. The study was performed on 239 cataract patients, 115 age-matched subjects, and 11 simulated patients. We measured gait velocity and analyzed gait using a three-dimensional motion analysis system. Mean gait velocity before and 2 and 7 months after cataract surgery was 0.91 ± 0.19, 1.04 ± 0.21, and 1.06 ± 0.21 m/s, respectively, for males and 0.84 ± 0.22, 0.91 ± 0.24, and 0.92 ± 0.25 m/s, respectively, for females. The increase after surgery was significant in both groups at 7 months (P < 0.05). Gait velocity was significantly slower in cataract patients compared with controls before surgery, but no longer different after surgery. In simulated patients, mean velocity was 87.0 ± 11.4% of normal vision with a 3° visual field and 92.4 ± 12.3% of normal when counting fingers. Initial velocity was 89.1 ± 14.6% of normal vision with a 3° visual field and 92.7 ± 11.6% of normal when counting fingers. There was a significant difference between normal and impaired visual function (P < 0.05). The results demonstrate the close relationship between visual function and gait in cataract patients and simulated patients.
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.