ArticlePloS one2016
Glaucoma and Driving: On-Road Driving Characteristics.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- 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
- Assessment of driving safety in non-professional drivers with moderate to severe glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Assessment of visual function under various lighting conditions in a cohort of active older drivers: dimensionality and principal metrics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Impact of Glaucomatous Ganglion Cell Damage on Central Visual Function.Annual review of vision science · 2024Review
- Approaching rehabilitation in patients with advanced glaucoma.Eye (London, England) · 2023Review
- Self-Reported Driving Difficulty, Avoidance, and Negative Emotion With On-Road Driving Performance in Older Adults With Glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Understanding the relationship between eye disease and driving in very old Australian women: a longitudinal thematic evaluation.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Self-Perception and the Relation to Actual Driving Abilities for Individuals With Visual Field Loss.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- The Effects of Visual Field Loss from Optic Disc Drusen on Performance in a Driving Simulator.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2022Article
- Eye Movement Abnormalities in Glaucoma Patients: A Review.Eye and brain · 2022Review
- Macular Pigment Response to Lutein, Zeaxanthin, and Meso-zeaxanthin Supplementation in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Ophthalmology science · 2021Article
- Impact of binocular visual field loss on driving performance in glaucoma patients.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Glaucomatous visual fields and neurocognitive function are independently associated with poor lane maintenance during driving simulation.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Age-Related Diseases and Driving Safety.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Visual attention outperforms visual-perceptual parameters required by law as an indicator of on-road driving performance.PloS one · 2020Observational
- Effects of driver compensatory behaviour on risks of critical pedestrian collisions under simulated visual field defects.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Alabama VIP older driver study rationale and design: examining the relationship between vision impairment and driving using naturalistic driving techniques.BMC ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Effects of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on Driving Performance.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2018Article
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
Abstract
purposeTo comprehensively investigate the types of driving errors and locations that are most problematic for older drivers with glaucoma compared to those without glaucoma using a standardized on-road assessment.
methodsParticipants included 75 drivers with glaucoma (mean = 73.2±6.0 years) with mild to moderate field loss (better-eye MD = -1.21 dB; worse-eye MD = -7.75 dB) and 70 age-matched controls without glaucoma (mean = 72.6 ± 5.0 years). On-road driving performance was assessed in a dual-brake vehicle by an occupational therapist using a standardized scoring system which assessed the types of driving errors and the locations where they were made and the number of critical errors that required an instructor intervention. Driving safety was rated on a 10-point scale. Self-reported driving ability and difficulties were recorded using the Driving Habits Questionnaire.
resultsDrivers with glaucoma were rated as significantly less safe, made more driving errors, and had almost double the rate of critical errors than those without glaucoma. Driving errors involved lane positioning and planning/approach, and were significantly more likely to occur at traffic lights and yield/give-way intersections. There were few between group differences in self-reported driving ability.
conclusionsOlder drivers with glaucoma with even mild to moderate field loss exhibit impairments in driving ability, particularly during complex driving situations that involve tactical problems with lane-position, planning ahead and observation. These results, together with the fact that these drivers self-report their driving to be relatively good, reinforce the need for evidence-based on-road assessments for evaluating driving fitness.
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.