ArticleScientific reports2025
Patient-reported vision impairment in low luminance relates to visual function in age-related macular degeneration: A MACUSTAR study report.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Macular degeneration collection.Scientific reports · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) can lead to a number of visual function deficits, but the patient relevance of these deficits is largely unknown. We therefore investigated how bilateral visual function domains affected by age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are associated with patient-reports. Using data from the cross-sectional part of the MACUSTAR study with 245 individuals with AMD (34 early AMD, 168 intermediate (i) AMD, 43 late AMD), the Vision Impairment in Low Luminance (VILL) questionnaire (subscales: reading, VILL_R; mobility, VILL_M; emotional well-being, VILL_E) and visual function assessments from both eyes (best-corrected and low-luminance visual acuity, BCVA, LLVA; Moorfields acuity, MA; contrast sensitivity, CS) were included. Associations between VILL and visual function data (better and worse eyes defined based on BCVA) were investigated using age- and sex-adjusted regression models. In the overall sample, VILL_R and VILL_M were associated with all functional tests across eyes (p ≤ 0.0389), while VILL_E was associated with MA and CS (p ≤ 0.0302). Regression estimates for BCVA, LLVA, MA and CS in the better-seeing eyes were -2.70, -1.84, -1.83 and 1.08 (VILL_R); -2.71, -1.87, -1.90 and 1.88 (VILL_M), and -0.25, -0.22, -2.15 and 1.57 (VILL_E). In iAMD, CS and MA in the worse-seeing eye were associated with two VILL subscales, respectively (VILL_R and VILL_M; VILL_M and VILL_E, respectively; p ≤ 0.0395), while BCVA and LLVA in the worse-seeing eye were both associated with one VILL subscale (VILL_M; p ≤ 0.0317). CS in the better eye was associated with VILL_M (p = 0.0454). Thus, patient-reported outcomes are associated with visual function assessments in both eyes in people with AMD. Contrast vision seems particularly patient-relevant in iAMD. Our results further support the construct validity of the VILL questionnaire.
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.