ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
VFQ-25 With and Without Rasch Scoring Assessed Using Simulated Data in Trials Comparing Laser With Anti-VEGF for Diabetic Retinopathy.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate treatment group differences in Rasch-calibrated and non-Rasch-calibrated health-related quality-of-life domain scores and visual acuity (VA) across randomized clinical trials of laser versus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Methods: We simulated 10,000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using random sample-and-replace bootstrapping methods from open-source data obtained from individual patient VA and National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) responses in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research (DRCR) Retina Network Protocol S, comparing ranibizumab with panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between treatment group differences in mean VA and mean domain scores and ranked them. We also calculated mean effect sizes for each domain and composite across RCTs. Results: Correlations between treatment group differences (mean VA vs. mean domain score) in rank order were as follows: Rasch combined, 0.408; Rasch socioemotional, 0.394; original composite, 0.388; near activities, 0.385; Rasch visual function, 0.383; and mental health, 0.380. Correlations were weaker for the remaining 10 domains. The largest effect sizes were found with the original composite, mental health, dependency, and peripheral vision, slightly larger than Rasch combined and Rasch socioemotional scales. Conclusions: Treatment group differences in Rasch calibrated VFQ-25 domains (visual function, socioemotional, combined) had the highest correlation with differences in VA, although the original multidimensional non-Rasch composite and near activities were similar. Translation Relevance: Use of Rasch calibrated scores is recommended for desirable psychometrics, but it may be acceptable to use the raw scored original composite instrument.
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.