ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2018
[Self-reported vision in (gerontological) health services research and practice-an opening plea].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Historical change in midlife trajectories of self-reported sensory functioning across 16 nations.The Gerontologist · 2026Article
- The Importance of Visual Health-A Representative Population Survey.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Article
- Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of self-reported vision is an integral part of most population surveys and is primarily used for healthcare monitoring. Since the patient's assessment is not always consistent with the objectively measured clinical parameters, the majority of the literature looks critically at the adequacy of self-reported vision, particularly with respect to answering epidemiological questions; however, it is often misunderstood that self-reported vision measures far more than the directly derived information show. This article shows the complexity of self-reported vision and discusses the importance of health services research and practice, with a special focus on the topic of vision in old age. From the explanations it becomes clear that the self-estimation of vision by a person is determined by various factors apart from the pure organ function and that the need for action and diagnostic conclusions can only be derived from self-reports. This is essential if vision is to be understood as a multifactorial condition and empirically practiced using different survey instruments. The article shows that self-reported vision is a good indicator of the quality of care in its entirety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29679132What 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.