ArticlePloS one2021
Mouth-nose masks impair the visual field of healthy eyes.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cortical response to transient and long-term visual field loss.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- The impact of inferior visual field on frail status in glaucoma patients.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Facemasks Block Lower Visual Field in Youth Ice Hockey.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMouth-nose masks have been requested to prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of the present study was to investigate, if wearing a mouth-nose mask impairs the visual field function in normals.
methodsThirty eyes of 30 subjects were recruited for the present study. White-on-white perimetry (OCTOPUS 900; 90°) was done and sensitivity was analysed in 14 defined test points (P1-P14, inferior visual field) under 3 different test conditions while the subjects were wearing a mouth-nose mask: (I) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip not used (position1.5cm_no_clip); (II) 1.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position1.5cm_with_clip); (III) 0.5 cm under the lower eyelid, nose clip correctly positioned (position0.5cm_with_clip). All data were compared to sensitivity without wearing a mouth-nose mask (reference). Mean Δ was calculated, being the difference between the results of each test condition and reference, respectively.
resultsSensitivity was significantly different between position1.5cm_no_clip and reference at 10 test points (p<0.05). Sensitivity at test point P7 was significantly different between position1.5cm_with_clip and position0.5cm_with_clip compared to reference (p<0.001), respectively. Mean Δ increased while wearing a mask at P7: position1.5cm_with_clip (-8.3 dB ± 7.3 dB) < position0.5cm_with_clip (-11.3 dB ± 9.5 dB) < position1.5cm_no_clip (-20.1 dB ± 7.6 dB).
conclusionVisual field function was observed to be significantly impaired in the inferior-nasal sector while persons were wearing a mouth-nose mask, especially when the nose clip was not correctly used.
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.