ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Psychometric Evaluation and Computerized Adaptive Testing Simulations of Myopic Refractive Intervention Quality of Life Item Banks.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality of life item banks for type 2 diabetes: psychometric evaluation and computerized adaptive testing simulations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To optimize the psychometric properties of myopia refractive intervention quality of life (QoL) item banks (IBs), and evaluate their performance using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) simulations. Methods: In this clinical study, adults utilizing myopic refractive intervention modalities answered 204 items within seven IBs: Activity Limitation (AL); Comfort (CM); Concerns (CN); Convenience (CV); Emotional (EM); Mobility (MB); and Work (WK), referred to collectively as "MyoRICAT". The psychometric properties of each IB were assessed with Rasch analysis, and CAT simulations with 1000 respondents determined the average number of items needed to achieve moderate (standard error of measurement [SEM] = 0.387) and high (SEM = 0.30) precision levels. Results: Of the 291 participants (mean age 34.02 ± 11.04 years; 65.64% female), 61 (20.96%) wore spectacles only, 123 (42.27%) used both spectacles and contact lenses, and 107 (36.76%) underwent laser refractive surgery. AL, CM, CN, CV, and EM showed satisfactory psychometric properties after minor amendments. WK lacked measurement precision owing to certain items being applicable only to specific subsets of refractive modalities. This IB was therefore retained as a fixed length rather than a CAT operationalized scale. Conversely, MB demonstrated such poor targeting that it was not considered further. In CAT simulations, the mean number of items required per IB ranged from 10 (CV) to 12 (AL) for moderate, and 15 (CV) to 19 (AL) for high measurement precision. Conclusions: Five IBs demonstrated strong psychometric properties and potential CAT efficiency. Translational Relevance: MyoRICAT can provide a comprehensive measurement of the QoL impact of myopic refractive intervention modalities.
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.