ArticleClinical optometry2023
Vision Quality of Life with Time Survey: Normative Data and Repeatability.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2023. 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.
- OculoMotor & Vestibular Endurance Screening (MoVES) Normative, Repeatability, and Reliability Data.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Article
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
Purpose: To develop a novel Vision Quality of Life (QoL) survey that emphasizes the amount of time a visual activity can be performed before symptoms occur. Methods: The Vision Quality of Life with Time (VisQuaL-T) survey was developed with 10 daily activities and a list of common visual symptoms. Participants were recruited from a university campus. Participants were not excluded based on binocular impairments to obtain a normative dataset. Participants were instructed to denote when they first experience symptoms within certain time ranges. If participants did not engage in one of the 10 activities, they were instructed to denote "N/A". A composite score (range 0-3) was determined by only accounting for the questions that were answered. Results: The normative data cohort had a sample size of 376 participants and the repeatability cohort had 54 participants. The normative, test, and retest datasets had a mean composite score of 2.47±0.54, 2.69±0.42, and 2.67±0.49 and 95% confidence interval of 2.38-2.71, 2.58-2.81, 2.54-2.80, respectively. There was good reliability and high correlation between the test and retest timepoints with an ICC of 0.825 and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.839 in the repeatability cohort. The normative data cohort showed good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.803. Test and retest timepoints showed no statistical significance among the individual questions (p > 0.1). Conclusion: A lower bound score of 2.4 can potentially be used to differentiate visually normal and symptomatic participants. Statistical analysis showed the survey is repeatable and reliable. Using time as a metric for assessing symptomology could be a useful method for identifying patients with QoL issues and for assessing effectiveness of binocular vision, accommodative, and eye movement treatments.
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.