ArticleCureus2024
Unlocking Clinical Insights and the Life-Changing Impact of Low-Vision Devices in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To elucidate the clinical profile of visual impairment (VI) and the effect of low-vision devices (LVD) among patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methodology A retrospective observational study was used. Case records of patients who reported to the low-vision care clinic with POAG were recruited for the study. Glaucoma was defined according to the International Society for Geographical and EO classification. Demographic data, visual acuity (LogMAR), clinical diagnosis, visual fields, occupation, and LVD prescribed were extracted from the records. The visual acuity pre- and post-use of LVD was compared. Visual acuity improvement while using the LVD was noted. Results Of the 200 POAG cases, 20% (n=40) had severe, 15.5% (n=31) had profound (<3/60), 20.5% (n=41) profound (<1/60), and 26.5% (n=53) had total blindness in the VI category. Significant improvement was noted for both distance and near vision (p=0.004 and p=0.000, respectively) for single-vision glasses, and significant improvement (p=0.000) was also noted for patients corrected for both distance and near correction (bifocal/progressive). Patients with severe visual field loss (p=0.004) and with a visual field defect of <10 degrees (p=0.000) both showed a significant improvement in near vision with low-vision rehabilitation. The proportion of patients earning showed improvement following LVD use compared to those who did not have self-earning (60% vs. 40.24%, p=0.0116). Conclusion LVD significantly improved near vision in POAG patients with advanced glaucoma, a visual field defect of less than 10 degrees. To effectively manage POAG patients with low vision, it is vital to understand both the ocular diseases causing VI and the patient's visual requirements and provide timely management.
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.