ArticleJournal of optometry
The impact of different spectacle designs on the European visual field requirements for driving.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSpectacles can obstruct the peripheral visual field (VF) and interfere with formal requirements for driving. The European VF standards can be assessed with perimetry using the European Driving Test (EDT). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different spectacles on the EDT, and their compliance with the European VF standards for driving.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 30 participants (15 males and 15 females) with normal VF. Participants underwent binocular EDT perimetry with three different spectacles. The number of missed test points were recorded and the vertex distance (VD), pupillary distance, and eye dominance were measured. Statistical comparisons were conducted using a generalized linear mixed model, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsPeripheral VF loss was observed in 11 (37 %) participants (10 males) with spectacle B and in six (20 %) participants (five males) with spectacle C, whereas only one participant had a single missed test point with spectacle A. Participants with spectacle-related VF loss had significantly greater VD than those without. Moreover, there were a higher number of missed test points on the side of the dominant eye.
conclusionsSpectacles with thin frames and temples had a negligible impact on the peripheral VF, whereas thicker frames and temples could compromise compliance with the VF standards. VF loss was associated with greater VD, which can explain why male participants exhibited more artefacts. These findings emphasize the need to consider spectacle design in fitness-to-drive assessments with perimetry and raise awareness of potential VF restrictions associated with certain eyewear.
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.