ArticleBMC neurology2026
Comparative study of refractive errors between patients with Parkinson's disease versus age- and sex-matched healthy controls.
Article in BMC neurology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare refractive errors between patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and age- and sex-matched healthy controls.
methodsIn this cross-sectional comparative study, individuals diagnosed with PD were chosen from Qaem Hospital in Mashhad (Iran) through convenience sampling, while healthy individuals were randomly selected from a population without PD. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, optometric examinations were conducted, which included measurements of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction, and binocular vision assessments. Myopia and hyperopia were classified as having a spherical equivalent (SE) worse than 0.50 diopters (D), and astigmatism was defined as a cylinder power exceeding 0.50 D.
resultsIn this study, 41 normal individuals and 42 PD patients were examined. The average age of the control group was 54.9 ± 9.8 years, while the PD group had an average age of 55.3 ± 9.6 years (P = 0.866). The mean SE for PD patients was 0.52 ± 1.22 D, compared to 0.09 ± 1.03 D in healthy subjects (P = 0.092). The mean cylinder power for PD patients was − 0.94 ± 0.55 D, compared to -0.59 ± 0.44 D for normal subjects (P = 0.002). The prevalence of hyperopia was found to be 45.2%(95%CI: 29.8–60.7) in the PD group and 26.8%(95%CI: 12.9–40.8) in the normal group (OR: 2.78, 95%CI: 0.94–8.19, P = 0.064). Additionally, 14.3%(95%CI: 3.4–25.2) of PD patients and 22.0%(95%CI: 8.9–35.0) of healthy subjects were identified as myopic (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.16–1.99, P = 0.380). Lastly, astigmatism was present in 29.3%(95%CI: 15-43.6) of normal subjects and 69.0%(95%CI: 54.7–83.4) of PD patients (OR = 5.84, 95%CI: 2.19–15.51, P < 0.001).
conclusionAstigmatism is notably prevalent among individuals with PD. Given the visual symptoms associated with astigmatism, it is essential to focus on its correction in these patients. Moreover, monitoring astigmatism, along with hyperopic shifts, could function as a predictive marker for PD screening in optometric practice.
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.