ArticleScientific reports2026
Eye-tracking reading patterns across different interventions in glaucoma patients versus controls.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate reading performance patterns – specifically saccades, fixations, and reading speed – under three visual interventions (font size, line spacing, and contrast) in glaucoma patients compared to control subjects, using an eye tracker. This cross-sectional study included 111 patients (57 patients with glaucoma and 54 controls), with no ocular diseases other than glaucoma, and collected demographic and ophthalmologic data. Glaucoma was defined as progressive changes on fundus stereophotographs and/or documented compatible visual fields defects. All patients had at least best-corrected visual acuity of 0.5 logMAR in the left eye. Eye tracker data was extracted using the ISCAN software. Participants performed a reading performance exercise using the MNREAD chart displayed on a computer screen, with five slides of each progressive intervention. Reading speed was calculated in words per minute; number and amplitude of saccades, number of fixations, and fixation duration were measured. Mean age was 61.8 (± 11.6) and 66.5 (± 13.7) years in the glaucoma and control group, respectively (P = 0.052). Educational level had no difference between the two groups (P = 0.393). Best-corrected visual acuity in the left eye was 0.18 (± 0.16) and 0.04 (± 0.10) logMAR in the glaucoma and control group, respectively (P < 0.001). Increased contrast had the most significant impact regarding reading patterns in glaucoma group, improving reading speed (P < 0.05 in 4 out of 5 slides), and reducing both the number of saccades (P < 0.05 in 4 out of 5 slides) and fixations (P < 0.05 in 3 out of 5 slides). Line spacing and font size had a less pronounced effect regarding saccades and fixations reading patters. Higher contrast significantly improves reading performance in Portuguese-speaking glaucoma patients by enhancing eye-movement efficiency, reducing the number of saccades and fixations, and thereby boosting their reading potential.
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.