ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparison of Unaided and Aided Visual Acuity in Adults With Down Syndrome.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. 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
Abstract
Purpose: Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have reduced visual acuity (VA), even when wearing refractive correction. The relationship between refractive error and VA in adults with DS is explored. Methods: Thirty adults with DS (age = 29 ± 10 years) were enrolled in a trial comparing clinical and objectively determined refractions. Monocular VA was recorded unaided and aided with best refraction. Vectors M, J0, and J45 were calculated from unaided wavefront aberration measures at the habitual pupil size. The square root of the sum of the squared vectors was calculated providing a single positive vector length representing unaided refractive error. Residual refractive error was determined after applying the best performing refraction. Linear regression determined correlation between refractive error and VAs. Results: Unaided and aided VAs ranged from 0.22 to 1.42 logMAR and 0.06 to 0.82 logMAR, respectively. Unaided and residual refractive error represented as vector length ranged from 0.68 diopters (D) to 13.76 D and 0.05 D to 1.87 D, respectively. Unaided refractive error and VA were significantly positively correlated (r2 = 0.776, P < 0.001), but not residual refractive error and VA (r2 = 0.005, P = 0.721). Conclusions: There was a positive correlation between unaided VA and refractive error magnitude in adults with DS; however, unaided VA was better than expected given the high levels of refractive error. Aided VA and residual refractive error were not correlated, despite overall low levels of remaining residual refractive error, suggesting that factors in addition to optical quality may be limiting VA in this population. Translational Relevance: Understanding the relationship between refractive error and VA in individuals with DS may provide clinicians clearer expectations for the acuity end points before and after correction for this patient population.
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.