ArticleInnovation in aging2026
Visual screening in an orthogeriatric rehabilitation setting: a feasibility evaluation.
Article in Innovation in aging, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Vision loss is a significant risk factor for falls. Given the associated morbidity and mortality, proactive risk-reduction strategies are warranted. This evaluation aimed to assess the feasibility and potential clinical value of bedside visual screening in an orthogeriatric rehabilitation setting and to estimate the proportion of previously unrecognized visual deficits among older inpatients admitted following a fall. Research Design and Methods: In this prospective, single-center feasibility evaluation, 21 patients aged ≥65 years admitted post-falls were assessed. Eligible participants scored >6 on the Abbreviated Mental Test Score. Bedside assessments included unaided vision, visual acuity (VA), low-contrast VA, and visual fields using Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR) charts and the Melbourne Rapid Fields web-based platform. Ocular history and participant feedback on the screening experience were also collected. Results: Unaided vision or habitual VA worse than 0.3 LogMAR (<6/12 Snellen equivalent) in at least one eye was observed in 67% of participants; 88% showed impaired low-contrast VA. Only 33% had been examined by a primary care optometrist in the year preceding admission. A proportion of deficits were potentially modifiable. Screening was well tolerated, with participants reporting a good understanding of the procedures. Discussion and Implications: Bedside visual screening by trained non-ophthalmic specialists is feasible and potentially clinically informative in the orthogeriatric setting. The high proportion of undetected visual deficits suggests missed opportunities for falls prevention. Routine standardized visual assessments may enable timely referrals, improve visual outcomes, and reduce falls-related morbidity in older adults.
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.