ArticlePloS one2022
The Screening Visual Complaints questionnaire (SVCq) in people with Parkinson's disease-Confirmatory factor analysis and advice for its use in clinical practice.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Reading Difficulties in Parkinson's Disease: A Stepped Care Model for Neurovisual Rehabilitation.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Screening Visual Complaints questionnaire (SVCq) is a short questionnaire to screen for visual complaints in people with Parkinson's disease (PD).
objectiveThe current study aims to investigate the factor structure of the SVCq to increase the usability of this measure in clinical practice and facilitate the interpretation of visual complaints in people with PD.
methodsWe performed a confirmatory factor analysis using the 19 items of the SVCq of 581 people with PD, investigating the fit of three models previously found in a community sample: a one-factor model including all items, and models where items are distributed across either three or five factors. The clinical value of derived subscales was explored by comparing scores with age-matched controls (N = 583), and by investigating relationships to demographic and disease related characteristics.
resultsAll three models showed a good fit in people with PD, with the five-factor model outperforming the three-factor and one-factor model. Five factors were distinguished: 'Diminished visual perception-Function related' (5 items), 'Diminished visual perception-Luminance related' (3 items), 'Diminished visual perception-Task related' (3 items), 'Altered visual perception' (6 items), and 'Ocular discomfort' (2 items). On each subscale, people with PD reported more complaints than controls, even when there was no ophthalmological condition present. Furthermore, subscales were sensitive to relevant clinical characteristics, like age, disease duration, severity, and medication use.
conclusionsThe five-factor model showed a good fit in people with PD and has clinical relevance. Each subscale provides a solid basis for individualized visual care.
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.