ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Individuals with severe visual field loss from stroke and glaucoma could have on-road driving safety comparable to normally sighted drivers.
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.
- Individuals with severe visual field loss from stroke and glaucoma could have on-road driving safety comparable to normally sighted drivers.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- The impact of different spectacle designs on the European visual field requirements for driving.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVision is a critical component of safe driving, yet establishing effective legal vision requirements for driver licensing remains challenging. Current EU regulations mandate minimum standards for visual acuity and visual fields, but also allow exemptions based on practical driving tests. This study investigates the on-road driving performance of individuals with visual field loss (VFL) who regained their licences after passing a simulator-based assessment, compared to age-matched and younger, normally sighted controls.
methodThe study included 72 individuals with VFL who had successfully completed a simulator test and regained their driver's licences. Each participant was matched with an age- and gender-matched normally sighted control and a younger normally sighted control (in total 212 participants). All participants underwent a standardized on-road driving test administered by certified examiners blinded to group allocation. The test evaluated vehicle knowledge, eco-driving, adherence to traffic rules and traffic safety/behaviour using the Swedish national driving test protocol. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors influencing pass rates.
resultsParticipants with VFL achieved a pass rate of 68%, comparable to the age-matched controls (66%) but lower than the younger controls (81%). No significant differences were observed in the proportions of passed tests, test elements, driving habits or interventions across groups. Within the VFL group, neither diagnosis type (e.g., glaucoma, stroke) nor the extent of visual field loss predicted test outcomes. While older groups (VFL and age-matched controls) received more remarks regarding observational competence compared to younger controls, no differences emerged in risk identification or other competence areas.
conclusionsThis study suggests that individuals with VFL can drive as safely as age-matched, normally sighted controls. Simulator and on-road tests are critical tools for individualized assessment, challenging the sole reliance on perimetry for licensing decisions. These findings support the inclusion of practical on-road driving tests as a regulatory option for individuals with VFL, promoting mobility while maintaining road safety.
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.