ArticleClinical & experimental optometry2016
Medical review licensing outcomes in drivers with visual field loss in Victoria, Australia.
Article in Clinical & experimental optometry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual field loss and falls requiring hospitalisation: results from the eFOVID study.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGood vision is essential for safe driving and studies have associated visual impairment with an increased crash risk. Currently, there is little information about the medical review of drivers with visual field loss. This study examines the prevalence of visual field loss among drivers referred for medical review in one Australian jurisdiction and investigates factors associated with licence outcome in this group.
methodsA random sample of 10,000 (31.25 per cent) medical review cases was extracted for analysis from the Victorian licensing authority. Files were screened for the presence of six visual field-related medical conditions. Data were captured on a range of variables, including referral source, age, gender, health status, crash history and licence outcome. Prevalence analyses were univariate and descriptive. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with licence outcomes in the visual field loss group.
resultsApproximately 1.9 per cent of the 10,000 medical review cases screened had a visual field loss condition identified (n = 194). Among the visual field loss group, 57.2 per cent were permitted to continue driving (conditional/unconditional licence). Primary referral sources were the police, self-referrals and general medical practitioners. Key factors associated with licence test outcomes were visual field condition, age group, crash involvement and referral to the Driver Licensing Authority's Medical Advisors. Those who were younger had a crash involvement triggering referral and those who were referred to the Medical Advisors were more likely to have a positive licensing outcome.
conclusionThe evidence base for making licensing decisions is complicated by the variable causes, patterns, progressions and measuring technologies for visual field loss. This study highlighted that the involvement of an expert medical advisory service in Victoria resulted in an increased likelihood that drivers with visual field loss will be allowed to continue driving. Further research is warranted to explore issues relating to severity of field loss and the capacity for compensation.
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.