ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Development and Validation of Performance-Based Assessment of Daily Living Tasks in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance on Activities of Daily Living and User Experience When Using Artificial Intelligence by Individuals With Vision Impairment.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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To establish the reliability and validity of five performance-based activities of daily living task tests (ADLTT), to correlate structure to function, to evaluate the impact of visual impairment (VI) on age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and to develop new outcome measures. Methods: A multidisciplinary team developed five ADLTTs: (1) reading test (RT); (2) facial expression (FE) recognition; (3) item search (IS) task; (4) money counting (MC) task; and (5) making a drink (MD), tested with binocular and monocular vision. ADLTTs were tested for known-group (i.e., difference between AMD group and controls) and convergent (i.e., correlation to other measures of visual function), validity metrics, and test-retest reliability in 36 patients with VI (visual acuity (logMAR VA > 0.4) in at least one eye caused by AMD versus 36 healthy controls without VI. Results: Compared to controls, AMD patients had a slower reading speed (-77.41 words/min; P < 0.001); took longer to complete MC using monocular worse eye and binocular vision (15.13 seconds and 4.06 seconds longer compared to controls, respectively; P < 0.001); and MD using monocular worse eye vision (9.37 sec; P = 0.033), demonstrating known-group validity. Only RT and MC demonstrated convergent validity, showing correlations with VA, contrast sensitivity, and microperimetry testing. Moderate to good test-retest reliability was observed for MC and MD (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.55 and 0.77; P < 0.001) using monocular worse eye vision. Conclusions: Real-world ADL functioning associated with VI-related AMD can be assessed with our validated ADLTTs, particularly MC and MD. Translational Relevance: This study validates visual function outcome measures that are developed for use in future clinical practice and clinical trials.
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.