ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Validation of the European visual field standards for driving: A driving simulator-based study.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. 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.
- Validation of the European visual field standards for driving: A driving simulator-based study.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether we could establish evidence-based pass/fail criteria for perimetry in the context of the European visual field standards for driving.
methodsThis two-centre, cross-sectional study included participants with binocular visual field loss that had led to revocation of a group-1 driving licence. The participants underwent cognitive and binocular visual testing, including the European Driving Test (EDT), a perimetry algorithm that adheres to the European visual field standards. We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the driving ability of these participants with healthy controls. Two driving instructors classified each driving test as passed or failed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and area under the curve (AUC) determined the ability of perimetry to discriminate between passed and failed driving tests.
resultsThe study included 70 participants with visual field loss and 37 controls. A non-significantly higher proportion of controls passed the driving test (75% vs. 63%; p = 0.22). In ROC analysis, contrast sensitivity performed best (AUC of 0.73), followed by NEI VFQ-25 (AUC of 0.64). Peripheral visual field (AUC of 0.56) and central visual field (AUC of 0.47) performed weaker. Combining the central and peripheral visual field, and their interaction, increased AUC to 0.63.
conclusionPerimetry was a poor predictor of simulator-based driving test result, and we could not establish appropriate pass/fail criteria for the European visual field standards. Because perimetry is not an accurate diagnostic tool for fitness to drive, a practical driving assessment should be performed in case of doubt.
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.