Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32585021›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Validation of Brief Screening Tools to Identify Impaired Driving Among Older Adults in Australia.

Kaarin J Anstey, Ranmalee Eramudugolla, Md Hamidul Huque, Mark Horswill, Kim Kiely, Alex Black, Joanne Wood

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Candrive-Development of a Risk Stratification Tool for Older Drivers.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Error in Methods.JAMA network open · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kaarin J AnsteySchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Ranmalee EramudugollaSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Md Hamidul HuqueSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Mark HorswillSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Kim KielySchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Alex BlackCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Joanne WoodCentre for Vision and Eye Research, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUNeuroscience Research Australia · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based assessments to identify older individuals who may be unsafe drivers. Objective: To validate 8 off-road brief screening tests to predict on-road driving ability and to identify which combination of these provides the best prediction of older adults who will not pass an on-road driving test. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study was conducted between October 31, 2013, and May 10, 2017, using the criterion standard for screening tests, an on-road driving test, with analysis conducted from August 1, 2019, to April 2, 2020. A volunteer sample of older drivers was recruited from community advertisements, rehabilitation and driver assessment clinics, and an optometry clinic in Canberra and Brisbane, Australia. Exposures: Off-road driver screening measures, including the Useful Field of View, DriveSafe/DriveAware, Multi-D battery, Trails B, Maze test, Hazard Perception Test, DriveSafe Intersection test, and 14-item Road Law test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Classification as unsafe on a standardized 50-minute on-road driving assessment administered by a driving instructor and an occupational therapist masked to the participant's clinical diagnosis and off-road test performance. Results: A total of 560 drivers aged 63 to 94 years (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years]; 350 [62.5%] men) were assessed. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses indicated the area under the curve was largest for a multivariate model comprising the Multi-D, Useful Field of View, and Hazard Perception Test, with an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94), sensitivity of 80.4%, and specificity of 84.1% for predicting unsafe drivers. The Multi-D battery was the most accurate individual assessment and had an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90), sensitivity of 77.1%, and specificity of 82.1%. The multivariate model had sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 91.8% in the cognitively impaired group and sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 70.8% in the visually impaired group. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that off-road screening tests can reliably identify older drivers with a strong probability of failing an on-road driving test. Implementation of these measures could enable better targeting of resources for managing older driver licensing and support injury prevention strategies in this group.

Indexed as

Automobile Driver ExaminationAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaAutomobile DrivingCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID32585021
PMCPMC7301240
OpenAlexW3036624097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.