ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Screening Questions to Identify Low Vision and Acuity-Defined Legal Blindness.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
Abstract
Purpose: Visual screening is important in public health, but visual acuity (VA) testing is costly at scale. We used items from a validated VA survey with 100 yes/no questions to identify screening questions for low vision (VA ≤ 0.3 logMAR or 20/40) and legal blindness as defined by the VA criterion (VA ≤ 1 logMAR or 20/200). Methods: We analyzed data from 385 adults with measured VA who completed the survey. Participants were classified positive if they answered "no" to selected single, pair, and triplet items for each threshold. We computed sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: For low vision, "In a fast-food restaurant, can you read the posted menus?" yielded AUC = 0.85 (sensitivity = 0.89; specificity = 0.81). For legal blindness, "When seated in front of a computer, are you able to read the letters on the keyboard keys?" produced AUC = 0.80 (sensitivity = 0.89; specificity = 0.71). For both screening thresholds, adding a second item increased AUC by ≤0.05; a third item gave no further improvement. Conclusions: One targeted question can screen for low vision or acuity-defined legal blindness with good discrimination; a two-item pair offers a compact option when higher specificity is desired. These brief, functional screens are practical when in-person VA testing is impractical.
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.