ArticleAmerican journal of lifestyle medicine
Distracted Driving and Driving Patterns in Older Drivers With Glaucoma.
Article in American journal of lifestyle medicine. 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
Limited research exists examining self-perceived vision and driving ability among individuals with glaucoma, and this study assessed the relationship between glaucoma, visual field, and visual acuity with driving capability. 137 individuals with glaucoma and 75 healthy controls were asked to evaluate self-rated vision, self-perceived driving ability, and self-perceived distracted driving. Visual acuity and visual field measurements were also obtained. Multivariable linear regressions were run to test each visual measure with driving outcomes. The average age was 72.2 years, 57.3% were male, and 72.5% were White. There were significant associations for a one-point increase in visual field and quality of corrected vision (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03-1.10), day vision (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.03-1.08), night vision (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.05-1.13), visual acuity score and higher quality of corrected of vision (RR = .41; 95% CI = .22-.77), day vision (RR = .39; 95% CI=.22-.71), and night vision (RR = .41; 95% CI = .18-.94); visual acuity score and ability to drive safely compared to other drivers your age (RR = .53; 95% CI = .29-.96). Individuals with poorer visual acuity and visual fields rate their vision and ability to drive lower than those with better vision, and this information will allow clinicians to understand where to target interventions to enhance safe driving practices.
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.