ArticleCureus2022
Development and Validation of a Lighting Facility for the Objective Assessment of the Visual Performance of Presbyopic Patients in a Series of Activities of Daily Living.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05359380 (Evaluation of the Impact of Light Intensity and Light Temperature on the Efficacy of Presbyopic Corrections With Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in a Series of Activities of Daily Living), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Impact of Light Intensity and Light Temperature on the Efficacy of Presbyopic Corrections With Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in a Series of Activities of Daily Living
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Level of Agreement of Intraocular Lens Power Measurements Between a Swept-Source OCT Biometer and a Partial Coherence Interferometer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Revisiting the Visual Acuity Curves. A Proposed Methodology for the Evaluation of Postoperative Visual Acuity in Presbyopia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Impact of Light Conditions on Visual Performance following Premium Pseudophakic Presbyopia Corrections.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Introduction The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate an experimental lighting facility that allows the evaluation of near and intermediate vision in different user-defined illuminance levels. Methods This is a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Normophakic patients populated three validation groups (VGs) according to their binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA): a) VG1, 0.0-0.1 logMAR; b) VG2, 0.4 logMAR; and c) VG3, 0.7 logMAR. All participants addressed 10 near and intermediate activities of daily life (ADLs) in the three following lighting settings: 1) 25 foot candles (fc)/3000 kelvins (K), 2) 50 fc/4000 K, and 3) 75 fc/6000 K. Results Thirty patients in each group performed all ADLs in the three lighting settings. VG1 demonstrated the best ADL scores in all ADLs and lighting settings, followed by the VG2. VG3 presented the worst scores. ADLs using printed material showed significant differences among the three lighting settings for all study groups, while ADLs using screens or needing manual dexterity demonstrated no significant differences except for the Screwdriver Test (ST) in VG1. All ADL scores demonstrated a high correlation with UNVA in all lighting settings (p < 0.001). Conclusion This is the first study that validates a lighting facility for comparative studies in patients with different near vision capacities performing a series of ADLs.
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.