Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38180569›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Evaluation of the test-retest and inter-mode comparability of the Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire in people with chronic eye diseases.

Jan Henrik Terheyden, Reglind A D Ost, Charlotte Behning, Liza Mekschrat, Gamze Bildik, Maximilian W M Wintergerst, Frank G Holz, Robert P Finger

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Visual Function Assessment in Geographic Atrophy: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan Henrik Terheyden *Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany. jan.terheyden@ukbonn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0174-4066
Reglind A D Ost *Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Charlotte BehningDepartment of Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Liza MekschratDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Gamze BildikDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Maximilian W M WintergerstDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2766-7038
Frank G HolzDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Robert P FingerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. RobertPatrick.Finger@umm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-7597
University Hospital Bonn · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe main objective of this study is to assess the test-retest and inter-administration mode reliability of the Impact of Vision Impairment profile (IVI), a common patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for people with chronic eye diseases.

methodsThe IVI was administered to adult patients with stable, chronic eye diseases two to four times per participant (average intervals between administrations 12 to 20 days; maximum two phone interviews, paper administration, electronic administration) by two trained interviewers. Rasch models were fit to the data. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean differences and Cronbach's alpha between test-retest administrations (two phone interviews) and inter-mode comparisons were calculated.

resultsTwo hundred-sixteen patients (mean age 67 ± 12 years, 40% male) were included in the study. The IVI met all psychometric requirements of the Rasch model, and the division into the domains of functional items (IVI_F) and emotional items (IVI_E) corresponded to the German validation study. ICCs (all for IVI_F and IVI_E, respectively) for the retest administrations were 0.938 and 0.912, and 0.853 and 0.893 for inter-mode comparisons phone/paper, 0.939 and 0.930 for phone/electronic, and 0.937 and 0.920 for paper/electronic (all p < 0.01). Mean differences (all for IVI_F and IVI_E, respectively) for the retest administrations were 2.8% and 0.7% and ranged from 2.0% to 6.2% and from 0.4 % to 4.9% between administration modes. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.886 to 0.944 for retest and inter-mode comparisons.

conclusionDue to the high test-retest reliability and the almost equally high comparability of different modes of administration of the IVI, the study endorses its use as a robust PROM to capture vision-related quality of life. Our results further support the use of the IVI as an endpoint in clinical trials and may simplify implementing it in both clinical trials or real-world evidence generation by offering multiple administration modes with high reliability.

Indexed as

PsychometricsQuality of LifeSickness Impact ProfileAgedChronic DiseaseEye DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPersons with Visual DisabilitiesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesVision DisordersVisual AcuityImpact of Vision Impairment scalePatient-reported outcomeQuality of lifeReliability

Identifiers

PMID38180569
PMCPMC11106107
OpenAlexW4390612632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.