Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32437505›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2020

Association of Visual Acuity Improvement With Uncorrected Refractive Error in Patients New to Low Vision Clinics.

Xinxing Guo, Bonnielin K Swenor, Judith E Goldstein

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinxing GuoWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bonnielin K SwenorWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Judith E GoldsteinWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There is substantial socioeconomic and individual burden from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and chronic ocular disease. Understanding the association of visual acuity (VA) reduction with URE and the adults most likely to benefit from refraction may help support clinical decision-making in ophthalmologic care and maximize patient outcomes. Objectives: To assess the magnitude of VA improvement associated with URE among adults under ophthalmic care who obtain low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services and identify the characteristics of the patients who are most likely to experience improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case series assessed patients 20 years or older who were new to the LVR clinics from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, and who had habitual VA between 20/40 and counting fingers (not including) and underwent refraction. Data analysis was performed from April 4, 2018, to December 20, 2019. Exposures: Patient demographics and clinical data, including habitual and refraction VA, refraction, and disease diagnosis. Habitual VA was categorized as mild (VA worse than 20/40 and at least 20/60), moderate (VA worse than 20/60 and better than 20/200), severe (VA 20/200 or worse and better than 20/500), and profound (VA 20/500 or worse) vision impairment (VI). Main Outcomes and Measures: At least 2-line VA improvement and any VA improvement (≥1-line) by refraction. Results: Among the 2923 patients new to LVR clinics, 1773 (mean [SD] age, 70 [18.2] years; 1069 [60.3%] female) were included in these analyses. The mean habitual VA was 20/100 (mean [SD], 0.67 [0.36] logMAR). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 493 patients (27.8%), and any VA improvement was seen in 1023 patients (57.7%). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 54 patients (34.8%) with corneal disorders and was more likely seen among patients aged 40 to <65 years compared with those aged 20 to <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.41), African American patients compared with white patients (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85), or patients with moderate VI compared with mild VI (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that URE is prevalent among patients with ocular disease and accessing LVR and that refractive evaluation should be considered for patients with ocular disease and reduced VA, especially working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, and those with moderate VI.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRefraction, OcularRefractive ErrorsRetrospective StudiesVision, LowVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID32437505
PMCPMC7243166
OpenAlexW3027524158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.