ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Self-perceived and measured visual function, the impact of eye-disease, wellbeing, social determinants, and personality traits in Swedish 70-year-olds-results from the Gothenburg H70 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Depression and its Association With Cataract Status and Self-Perceived Burden of Elderly Patients With Cataract.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2025Article
- Self-perceived and measured visual function, the impact of eye-disease, wellbeing, social determinants, and personality traits in Swedish 70-year-olds-results from the Gothenburg H70 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the potential correlation between subjective and measured visual function, as well as to analyse the influence of eye disease, socioeconomic factors and emotional dimensions.
methodsSemi-structured interviews, physical examinations and functional tests (n = 1203). Demographics covered sex, marital status, education, household economy, smoking and alcohol. Participants (born in 1944) rated their visual function (n = 533); those misjudging (n = 48) were studied. Group A (n = 18) had low presenting visual acuity (PVA) but reported good vision; Group B (n = 30) had normal PVA but reported low vision. Control group (n = 485) matched subjective and measured visual function. Ophthalmic examination tested visual acuity (VA), visual field and contrast sensitivity (CS). Psychometric tests: NEO-FFI, sense of coherence (SOC) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). STATISTICAL TESTS: chi-square, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test and logistic regression.
resultsOf the population, 91% made correct assumptions about their vision. The 9% who made incorrect assumptions about their vision ability (combining groups A + B) were more likely to live alone (p = 0.02) and had lower household incomes compared to the control group (p = 0.04). Additionally, the exhibited significantly lower PVA and BCVA, a higher prevalence of visual field defects (p = 0.02) and lower CS, mean 1.63 (p = 0.005). Group A (3.4%) were women (p = 0.002) with the personality of extraversion, mean 40.0 (p = 0.01). Group B (5.6%) had more self-reported eye diseases (p = 0.01), lower CS (p = 0.01), lower educational level (p = 0.03) and border significantly lower SOC (p = 0.06).
conclusionsThe perception of visual function is shaped by awareness of an eye disease but is additionally influenced by sex, socioeconomic factors and emotional parameters.
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.