ArticleJournal of current glaucoma practice
Glaucoma and Driving License: How to Identify Patients at Risk of Revocation.
Article in Journal of current glaucoma practice. 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.
- Reliability of Binocular Esterman Visual Field Test in Patients with Glaucoma and Other Ocular Conditions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- [Fitness to drive with glaucoma].Die Ophthalmologie · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To identify clinical criteria that are easily achievable with follow-up tests and can identify subjects not suitable for driving. Patients and methods: We recruited 194 subjects with a clear diagnosis of glaucoma, with no other conditions that could affect the visual field (VF), and who performed a reliable VF examination. All patients underwent a full ophthalmologic evaluation and a questionnaire considering driving habits. An integrated visual field (IVF) was built using both monocular VF charts; the number of missed points (NoMP) within the central 20°, the average sensitivity (AS), and the better eye mean deviation (BEMD) were evaluated. Results: A total of 128 subjects showed a valid driving license (DL); 61.7% of drivers did not show missed points within the central 20° of the IVF, 27.4% presented one to three missed points, and 10.9% had four or more missed points. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was highly above the legal criteria.Stratifying drivers by their BEMD (-7, -10, and -14 dB), we confirmed that the BEMD decrease corresponds to an increased NoMP and a decreased AS. Conclusion: Better eye mean deviation can be useful in clinical practice to identify patients at increased risk of being unsuitable for driving. Nevertheless, it is important to set specific cut-offs based on on-road driving performance. IVF evaluation may also be implemented in perimeter analysis software so that the composition of IVF, the BEMD, and the AS could directly describe the patient's binocular VF, excluding recourse to the Esterman visual field test (EVFT). Clinical significance: This new methodology will allow every physician-not just ophthalmologists-even if not an expert in evaluating a VF test, in assessing the ability to drive of glaucomatous patients. How to cite this article: Landini L, Donati S, Digiuni M,
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.