ArticleActa ophthalmologica2020
A very short version of the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-3oo7) for use as a routinely applied Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining a standards framework for ophthalmology real-world data methodologies through an expert-led Delphi consensus.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- DERIVATION OF A SHORT FORM OF THE NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE-25 IN SUBJECTS WITH NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- An international survey of optometric management of stroke survivors.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Measurement of visual functioning following first and second eye cataract surgery using Vision-Related Activity Limitation Item Bank.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- A very short Symptom Checklist-90-R version for routine outcome monitoring in psychotherapy; The SCL-3/7.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable supplements in regular care to facilitate routine monitoring of quality of life from the patient's perspective. The 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) is a widely used PROM in ophthalmology. However, the NEI-VFQ-25 is too time-consuming and cumbersome for routine evaluations in regular care. The aim of this study is to construct a 7-item questionnaire of which only 3 items are presented to the patient, by means of routing. This VFQ 3 out of 7 (VFQ-3oo7) should have a minimal loss of information compared with the NEI-VFQ-25.
methodsAn historical database including 3293 administrations of the NEI-VFQ-25 was constructed involving patients with retinal detachment, cataract, corneal diseases, glaucoma, macular degeneration, uveal melanoma and a normal population sample. The data were subjected to Rasch analyses, in particular a generalized partial credit model. Items were sorted on the latent trait and divided into seven categories. From each category, the item with the highest discriminative value was selected. Through routing, only three out of the seven remaining questions are used, where the answers navigate patients to a fitting trait level.
resultsA one-dimensional structure was considered fitting. The VFQ-3oo7 showed a small loss of information compared with the total score of the NEI-VFQ-25: correlation 0.927 and a relative precision of 0.868.
conclusionThe very short, but valid, VFQ-3oo7 can be applied to evaluate the patient's perceived vision-related health status in routine evaluations of treatments in regular care, with a small burden for patients.
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.