ArticleCurrent eye research2022
Low Vision Referral Patterns in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Current eye research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Importance of Screening for Contrast Sensitivity, Falls, and Mobility Limitations in Older Adults With Maculopathy.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Practice patterns and preferences in the management of age-related macular degeneration among vitreoretinal surgeons in the Philippines.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Low Vision Rehabilitation Referral Characteristics for Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSparse data exist regarding low vision (LV) services referral patterns. We retrospectively examined our institution's intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD) patients to determine factors influencing referral.
methodsWe compared visual acuity (VA) and Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite and subscale scores for referred and non-referred iAMD patients. VA was collected at time of referral or most recent visit, and VFQ-25 was taken upon enrollment into the registry.
resultsThirty-six (15.5%) of the 232 iAMD patients were referred to LV. Referred patients were more likely to have older age, worse VA in both eyes, and lower VFQ-25 scores. Univariate analysis of VFQ-25 subscales demonstrated worse scores in general vision, near, distance, mental health, role limitations, dependency, and driving. Multivariable analysis revealed lower scores in general health, general vision, and driving. Forty-eight percent of non-referred patients had VA or VFQ-25 composite scores at least as poor as the median for referred patients. Two-thirds of patients who were not referred had no discernable obstacle to referral.
conclusionsOur institution refers patients with worse objective and functioning vision, but more patients may benefit from referral. Future studies should identify metrics to prompt referral and evaluate this approach.
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.