ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Efficiency, Precision, Validity, and Reliability of GlauCAT-Asian Computerized Adaptive Tests in Measuring Glaucoma-Related Quality of Life.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments Relevant to Glaucoma.Journal of glaucoma · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Combined Cataract and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries on Glaucoma-Specific Quality of Life.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Psychometric Evaluation and Computerized Adaptive Testing Simulations of Myopic Refractive Intervention Quality of Life Item Banks.Translational vision science & technology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the efficiency, precision, and agreement of GlauCAT-Asian and its corresponding validity and reliability. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 219 participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 66.59 ± 8.61 years; 34% female) across the spectrum of glaucoma severity and 50 glaucoma suspects were recruited from glaucoma clinics in Singapore. Participants answered seven computerized adaptive testing (CAT) evaluations (Ocular Comfort, Activity Limitation, Lighting, Mobility, Concerns, Psychosocial, Glaucoma Management) and underwent eye examinations. Efficiency (mean number of items required for each CAT and time taken for CAT versus full item banks [IBs]), agreement (concordance between CATs and full IB person measures, henceforth referred to as scores), and precision (standard error of measurement [SE]) were evaluated. Other validity and reliability metrics were also assessed. Results: The mean number of items administered ranged from 9 (Mobility/Glaucoma Management) to 12 (Ocular Comfort). Compared to answering the full IBs, CATs provided an average time saving of 38.3% (range, 10% to 70.6% for Lighting and Activity Limitation, respectively). Agreement between scores obtained by CAT versus full IB was high (intracorrelation coefficient ≥0.75), as was precision of score estimates (mean SE range: 0.35 for Psychosocial to 0.29 for Mobility). Scores from Activity Limitation, Mobility, Lighting, and Concerns decreased significantly as glaucoma severity increased (criterion validity; P-trend <0.05). All tests displayed good convergent/divergent validity and test-retest reliability. Conclusions: GlauCAT-Asian provides efficient, precise, accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of the patient-centered impact of glaucoma. Translational Relevance: GlauCAT-Asian may provide a valuable clinical tool for ophthalmologists to monitor impact of disease progression and the effectiveness of therapies.
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.