ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Patient-Reported Outcomes in RLBP1 Retinal Dystrophy: Longitudinal Assessment in a Prospective Natural History Study.
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. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of two non-disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) and the Low Luminance Questionnaire (LLQ), in patients with retinaldehyde-binding protein 1 retinal dystrophy (RLBP1 RD). Methods: PROs were assessed using the VFQ-25 and LLQ. Rasch analysis was conducted to estimate person and item measures of the VFQ-25 and LLQ questionnaires to determine the association between the two PROs. In addition, the association between these two instruments and their correlations to weighted measures of visual function and disease progression were analyzed in this three-year PRO-focused sub-study of a five-year prospective natural history study. Results: Forty-two patients participated, with most of them having completed at least two PRO follow-up visits at least one year apart. The mean VFQ-25 scores were lowest for distance activities (39.2-49.0) and peripheral vision (37.5-52.4), with mean LLQ subscale scores generally low (<41), except for the emotional distress subscale. Using Rasch analysis, calibrated item and person measures along with their standard errors were estimated for both ePROs. This indicated that the distribution of the VFQ-25 and LLQ item measures well covered the distribution of person function in this group. This suggests that the item difficulties well cover the person-level performance in this population. As well, the two PROs showed a strong and significant correlation at all assessed time points as assessed with Pearson correlation coefficient (0.81, 0.91, 0.81 and 0.87 at baseline, 1/1.5, 2/2.5 (P < 0.001) and 3/3.5 years (P = 0.002)). The composite scores of both PRO questionnaires strongly correlated with clinical measures of visual function. At 2 to 2.5 years of follow-up, meaningful statistically significant declines in peripheral vision (both VFQ-25 and LLQ), distance vision (VFQ-25), and extreme lighting in dark and bright light (LLQ) subscales were noted. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a strong association between VFQ-25 and LLQ scores and their association with clinical measures of visual function. Translational Relevance: PRO instruments can provide insights into the specific disabilities of this unique patient population and help to guide appropriate outcome measures for future 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.