Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Is the high contrast visual acuity chart a good predictor of improvement in visual acuity with low vision aids?
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual function in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and optic neuritis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To assess whether the objective improvement seen with HCVA chart using LVAs correlates with subjective improvement in the quality of life as measured on low vision quality of life (LVQOL) questionnaire of such patients. Methods: This was a prospective, consecutive, observational study. Objective improvement in visual function was assessed using LVAs with high contrast LogMAR visual acuity chart for near and distance. Subjective improvement for distance was assessed using LVQOL score for "distance mobility and lighting", whereas for near it was assessed using the LVQOL score for "near and fine work". A total of 46 patients completed one follow-up after low vision trial and were included in the study. Results: Improvement in objective visual acuity was highly significant for both near and distance (P < 0.001) with LVAs. LVQOL score improved from 65.85 to 76.83 after one of using low vision aids (P < 0.001). The improvement in LVQOL score for distance and mobility was also highly significant (2.55; P < 0.001); and so was for near and fine work (5.89; P < 0.001). However, Spearman rank correlation coefficient showed no correlation between improvement in visual acuity for distance and LVQOL score improvement for distance (r Conclusion: No statistical correlation was observed between the improvements measured by objective HCVA charts and subjective improved as perceived by the patient after use of low vision devices.
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.