ArticleBMJ open2018
Cross-sectional study assessing the addition of contrast sensitivity to visual acuity when testing for fitness to drive.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of femtosecond laser-assistedFrontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Does intraocular straylight predict night driving visual performance? Correlations between straylight levels and contrast sensitivity, halo size, and hazard recognition distance with and without glare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Assessment of cognitive screening tests as predictors of driving cessation: A prospective cohort study of a median 4-year follow-up.PloS one · 2021Article
- Self-reported driving difficulty in patients with bilateral cataract.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to quantify the importance of loss of contrast sensitivity (CS) and its relationship to loss of visual acuity (VA), driving restrictions and daytime, on-road driving evaluations in drivers aged 70+.
designA predictive cross-sectional study.
settingVolunteer participants to a drivers' refresher course for adults aged 70+ delivered by the Swiss Automobile Club in western Switzerland from 2011 to 2013.
participants162 drivers, male and female, aged 70 years or older. CLINICAL PREDICTORS: We used a vision screener to estimate VA and the The Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test to test CS. OUTCOMES: We asked drivers to report whether they found five driving restrictions useful for their condition; restrict driving to known roads, avoid driving on highways, avoid driving in the dark, avoid driving in dense traffic and avoid driving in fog. All participants also underwent a standardised on-road evaluation carried out by a driving instructor.
resultsModerate to severe loss of CS for at least one eye was frequent (21.0% (95% CI 15.0% to 28.1%)) and often isolated from a loss of VA (11/162 cases had a VA ≥0.8 decimal and a CS of ≤1.5 log(CS); 6.8% (95% CI 3.4% to 11.8%)). Drivers were more likely (R
conclusionCS loss is common for older drivers. Screening CS and referring for cataract surgery even in the absence of VA loss could help maintain mobility. Reduced CS and moderate reduction of VA were both poor predictors of daytime on-road driving performances in this research study.
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.