ArticlePeerJ2026
Resetting of the NEI-RQL-42 scale model for spectacle and contact lens wearers.
Article in PeerJ, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The NEI Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI-RQL-42) was developed to assess how refractive error compensation affects quality of life. The purpose of this study was to reset the NEI-RQL-42 scale model to develop specific scales related to the use of ophthalmic lenses and contact lenses (CLs). Methods: A prospective study was designed. Healthy volunteers between 18 and 70 years of age completed the NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire twice, once for spectacles use and once for CLs use. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the original factor and refine the subscales to improve the psychometric properties of the NEI-RQL-42 and detect differences between spectacles and CLs. Results: Seventy-five healthy subjects (58 women and 17 men with an average age of 30.53 ± 12.51 years) were included. The original factor structure did not show an acceptable fit for spectacles or CLs. Several items were removed from the spectacles and CLs datasets, and some modifications of the subscales based on modification indices were introduced to obtain acceptable models for both samples. Spectacle users showed significantly higher scores ( Conclusion: analysis of the NEI-RQL-42 score with an adequate statistical approach allows us to identify the differences between the effects of spectacles and CLs wear on patients' QoL, providing useful information regarding the impact of refractive error compensation on QoL. Our results suggest that it is unlikely that the same scale can be used for different methods of refractive error compensation, such as spectacles or CLs.
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.