Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35687309›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022

Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards.

Robert A Harper, Jeremy A Parkes, Christine M Dickinson

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Head Scanning by Drivers With Left Homonymous Visual Field Loss: A Naturalistic Driving Pilot Study.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robert A HarperManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5437-2553
Jeremy A ParkesManchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Christine M DickinsonDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBManchester Royal Eye Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's (DVLA) visual field criteria mean that homonymous defects close to fixation are not usually acceptable for driving. Here, we illustrate cases where patients with field defects failing to meet standards had their licences revoked but subsequently were permitted to drive again through exceptional case provisions.

methodsClinical assessment of two patients with homonymous loss: a 62-year-old man (PWT) with a dense left upper homonymous quadrantanopia secondary to a right occipital lobe stroke and a 48-year-old woman (JC), only aware of right upper homonymous quadrantanopia following routine primary care assessment and subsequently attributed to left middle cerebral artery stroke from perinatal intracranial haemorrhage.

resultsPWT's Esterman test showed a significant central defect failing to meet the standard. His subsequent ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable with excellent visual functions. Clinical evidence was provided supporting his relicensing application, and in time, a practical DVLA driving assessment indicated adaptation had been successful, and his licence was restored. JC's defect also failed to meet the standard, and her licence was revoked. Her ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable, and her condition was attributed to a nonprogressive, isolated perinatal event. The DVLA accepted supporting clinical evidence; her subsequent practical driving assessment demonstrated successful adaptation and her licence was also restored.

conclusionsConventional visual field tests are not necessarily predictive of real-world driving performance, with drivers' adaptive strategies not being accommodated. In the UK, individuals with visual field loss failing to meet the standard may be eligible for relicensing as exceptional cases if specific criteria can be met. For exceptional cases potentially licensable under these criteria, the DVLA requires clinician support and a satisfactory practical driving assessment. Similar provisions exist internationally. Clinicians need to be aware of the role they may play in such scenarios.

Indexed as

Automobile DrivingVisual FieldsFemaleHemianopsiaHumansMaleMiddle AgedVision DisordersVisual Field Testsdrivinglow visionvisual fields

Identifiers

PMID35687309
PMCPMC9543539
OpenAlexW4281652809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.