Observational studyPloS one2026
Age-related changes in visual performance: A defocus curve study in healthy phakic eyes.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Binocular Summation in Healthy Presbyopic Adults: Contrast Sensitivity and Defocus Curves.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Subjective Accommodative Function and Defocus Curve Metrics in Phakic Adults Aged 45-65 Years.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Observational
- Real-World Two-Year Outcomes of Diffractive Implantable Phakic Contact Lenses in Presbyopic Myopes: Functional Vision, Anatomical Findings, and Environmental Context.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Prevalence and Pattern of Refractive Errors Among Yanomami Indigenous People in the Brazilian Amazon: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyObservational
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
This study aimed to characterize the impact of age on visual performance by analyzing monocular defocus curves across a wide age range in healthy phakic eyes. This observational cross-sectional study included 105 subjects, evenly distributed into seven age groups (20-65 years). Monocular visual acuity (VA) was measured at defocus levels from -3.00 D to +1.00 D in 0.50 D steps. Defocus curves were analyzed using four key metrics: baseline VA at zero defocus, curve slope, area under the curve (AUC), and the negative defocus cut-off point at 0.2 logMAR VA. A linear mixed-effects model assessed group differences in defocus curve shape, while non-parametric and parametric tests evaluated differences in AUC and cut-off points. We found that defocus curves remained stable up to 44 years of age, with a significant decline in baseline VA, curve steepness, and overall visual performance beginning at 45 years. AUC values significantly decreased with age, with a clear demarcation between younger (G1-G3; 20-44 years) and older groups (G4-G7; 45-65 years). The 0.2 logMAR cut-off point could not be reached in most younger subjects, indicating preserved accommodative capacity. In contrast, older subjects showed a progressive reduction in depth of focus, with statistically significant differences particularly between groups G4 (45-50 years) and G7 (61-65 years). Overall, these results indicate that defocus curve analysis reveals a functional inflection point in visual performance beginning at 45 years of age. This transition reflects early presbyopic changes, marked by reduced tolerance to defocus and diminished depth of focus. These findings support the use of defocus curves as a valuable tool to assess age-related visual changes beyond conventional distance and near VA tests.
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.