ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Chinese version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire after cataract surgery.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. 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.
- Validity of OSDI-6 questionnaire in a Chinese adult population.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Reliability of Chinese web-based ocular surface disease index questionnaire in dry eye patients: a randomized, crossover study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Application of neural network model in assisting device fitting for low vision patients.Annals of translational 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the Chinese version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (CLVQOL) as an instrument for obtaining clinically important changes after cataract surgery.
methodsPatients underwent cataract surgery in Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, who fit the inclusion criteria were recruited. Two CLVQOLs were administered, including a preoperative CLVQOL and a CLVQOL at the end of the 3mo follow-up period, and were completed using face-to-face interviews or phone interviews conducted by trained investigators. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using an anchor-based method and a distribution method. In addition, the responsiveness of the questionnaire was measured.
resultsA total of 155 residents were enrolled. The average visual acuity (VA) preoperatively was 0.08 (SD=0.05), and it increased to 0.47 (SD=0.28) at the end of follow-up. Statistically significant positive changes in the CLVQOL scores indicated significant improvement of vision related quality of life after cataract surgery. With the larger value between the two results as the final value, the MCID values of the CLVQOL (scores of the four scales as well as the total score) were 8.94, 2.61, 4.34, 3.10 and 17.63, respectively. The CLVQOL has both good internal and external responsiveness.
conclusionCLVQOL scores are appropriate instruments for obtaining clinically important changes after cataract surgery. This study is an effective exploration for establishing cataract surgery efficacy standards, which helps clinical and scientific research workers in ophthalmology to gain a more in-depth understanding when using CLVQOL.
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.