ArticleJAMA network open2020
Validation of Brief Screening Tools to Identify Impaired Driving Among Older Adults in Australia.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual motion sensitivity and driving performance and safety.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Visual motion perception and driving hazard visibility at night-time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation and Modification of the Multifactorial Model of Driving Safety Among Older Adults.Innovation in aging · 2025Article
- Subjective memory concerns and car collisions: A cross-sectional cohort study among older Japanese drivers.Heliyon · 2024Article
- On the road to retirement: Predicting nighttime driving difficulty and cessation using self-reported health factors.Journal of transport & health · 2024Article
- Candrive-Development of a Risk Stratification Tool for Older Drivers.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- Vision Screening for Motor Vehicle Collision Involvement among Older Drivers.Ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Article
- Error in Methods.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.