ArticleJournal of optometry
Impact of peripheral optical errors in age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common ocular condition leading to reduced central visual function and increased dependency on the peripheral field of view for all visual tasks. This study aims to assess the effect of optical errors on peripheral vision in dry form AMD.
methodsHigh contrast resolution acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured in the 20° nasal visual field of fourteen subjects with advanced or early dry AMD. The measurements were performed through an adaptive optics vision simulator to simulate average phakic as well as pseudophakic peripheral optical errors.
resultsOverall, inducing population average phakic optical errors resulted in better peripheral visual function than average pseudophakic optical errors for all measured subjects, both in high contrast resolution acuity and contrast sensitivity. Specifically, the mean differences between phakic and pseudophakic conditions were 0.16 logMAR in resolution acuity and 0.43 in logarithmic contrast sensitivity. These changes are larger than the results of studies on younger subjects with healthy vision.
conclusionThe study thereby concludes that reducing peripheral optical errors can improve peripheral vision, although further work is needed to determine how this translates to everyday visual performance. Interestingly, the improvement appears to be larger for AMD patients compared to healthy eyes.
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.