Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38592339›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

Psychometric evaluation of the near activity visual questionnaire presbyopia (NAVQ-P) and additional patient-reported outcome items.

Joel Sims, Brigitte Sloesen, Sarah Bentley, Christel Naujoks, Rob Arbuckle, Sima Chiva-Razavi, Ben Pascoe, Jan Stochl, Amy Findley, Paul O'Brien and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Joel SimsAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK. joel.sims@adelphivalues.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0474-2186
Brigitte SloesenNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Sarah BentleyAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Christel NaujoksNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Rob ArbuckleAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Sima Chiva-RazaviNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Ben PascoeAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Jan StochlAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Amy FindleyAdelphi Values, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Paul O'BrienNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
James S WolffsohnSchool of Optometry, College of Health and Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Adelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBNovartis (Switzerland) · CHAston University · GBCharles University · CZ

Funding

Novartis Pharma Novartis Pharma
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Near Visual Acuity Questionnaire Presbyopia (NAVQ-P) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure that was developed in a phakic presbyopia population to assess near vision function impacts. The study refined and explored the psychometric properties and score interpretability of the NAVQ-P and additional PRO items assessing near vision correction independence (NVCI), near vision satisfaction (NVS), and near vision correction preference (NVCP).

methodsThis was a psychometric validation study conducted using PRO data collected as part of a Phase IIb clinical trial (CUN8R44 A2202) consisting of 235 randomized adults with presbyopia from the US, Japan, Australia, and Canada. Data collected at baseline, week 2, and months 1, 2, and 3 during the 3-month trial treatment period were included in the analyses to assess item (question) properties, NAVQ-P dimensionality and scoring, reliability, validity, and score interpretation.

resultsItem responses were distributed across the full response scale for most NAVQ-P and additional PRO items. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the pre-defined unidimensional structure and calculation of a NAVQ-P total score as a measure of near vision function. Item deletion informed by item response distributions, dimensionality analyses, item response theory, and previous qualitative findings, including clinical input, supported retention of 14 NAVQ-P items. The 14-item NAVQ-P total score had excellent internal consistency (α = 0.979) and high test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients > = 0.898). There was good evidence of construct-related validity for all PROs supported by strong correlations with concurrent measures. Excellent results for known-groups validity and ability to detect change analyses were also demonstrated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods supported interpretation of scores through generation of group-level and within-individual estimates of meaningful change thresholds. A meaningful within-patient change in the range of 8-15-point improvement on the NAVQ-P total score (score range 0-42) was recommended, including a more specific responder definition of 10-point improvement.

conclusionsThe NAVQ-P, NVCI, and NVS are valid and reliable instruments which have the ability to detect change over time. Findings strongly support the use of these measures as outcome assessments in clinical/research studies and in clinical practice in the presbyopia population.

Indexed as

MyopiaPresbyopiaAdultAustraliaHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsClinical outcome assessmentNear vision functionPatient-reported outcomePresbyopiaPsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID38592339
PMCPMC11004101
OpenAlexW4394613329

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.