ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021
Comparison between the English and Bahasa Malaysia language versions of the Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ-25) for use in patients with cataracts.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual impairment in any eye adversely affects quality of life: Psychometric validation of the Malay NEI VFQ-25.PloS one · 2025Article
- The effect of phacoemulsification on visual function among Filipino cataract patients measured by a validated Filipino translation of Catquest-9SF.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted the study to compare the psychometric properties of the English version of the Questionnaire and the Bahasa Malaysia (Malay Language) version regarding the vision-related Quality of Life of patients with cataracts.
methodsThe Malay version was translated by two independent translators who were well versed in both languages. We carried out a cross-sectional study collecting data between June 2017 and March 2018 in the pre-operative Eye Clinic of Hospital Melaka with 224 respondents (mean age 66.8 years) and another 204 respondents (mean age 64.3 years) participating in the English version and Malay version of the Questionnaire respectively. Methods used to validate the standard questionnaire included the use of construct validity via factor analysis and the deployment of reliability test through assessment of internal consistency via Cronbach's alpha.
resultsWe observed both English and Bahasa Malaysia versions to have high reliability with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.90 and above in factors on difficulty with activities and responses to vision problems. Exploratory factor analysis performed revealed that the three-factor model fits the data well for the English version of the questionnaire - difficulty with activities (23.81 % of variance), responses to vision problem (22.22 % of variance) and general health and vision (14.68 % of variance). The Bahasa Malaysia version of the questionnaire produced three factors with two of the factors resembling the factors from the original version of the questionnaire - difficulty with activities (24.3 % of variance) and responses to vision problem (23.7 % of variance). Item response theory analysis revealed that these factors for both English and Bahasa Malaysia versions comprised of adequately fitted items.
conclusionThe present study observed that both the English and Bahasa Malaysia versions of the NEI VFQ-25 have comparable construct validity to the original American version. With high validity and reliability, the tool shall be able to provide health care providers the assessment of impact due to cataract and other ophthalmic conditions on the vision-related quality of life of ophthalmic patients.
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.