ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2026
Joint effects of visual acuity impairment and visual field loss on reading performance: a low-vision simulation in Chinese readers.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the individual and joint effects of reduced visual acuity (VA) and restricted visual field (VF) on the reading performance of Chinese readers under standardized low-vision simulation.
methodsEighty-one adults were randomized to three simulated distance VA levels using Bangerter foils: normal VA (≤ 0.30 logMAR), mild VA impairment (VAI) (0.30 logMAR< VA ≤ 0.52 logMAR), and moderate VAI (> 0.52 logMAR). VF was simulated as normal, moderate VF impairment (VFI) (20° radius), or severe VFI (10° radius) using specially designed goggles. Reading speed (RS) was measured using the Chinese International Reading Speed Texts (IReST). Maximum reading speed (MRS), reading acuity (RA), and critical print size (CPS) were measured using the Chinese Reading Acuity Chart. RS and MRS were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, whereas RA and CPS were analyzed using generalized estimating equations with a gamma distribution and log link.
resultsReduced VA and restricted VF significantly decreased RS and MRS. Compared with normal VA, mild VAI reduced RS by 80.6 characters per minute (cpm, 95% CI: - 98.4 to - 62.7) and MRS by 52.9 cpm (95% CI: - 65.3 to - 40.6), while moderate VAI reduced MRS by 63.3 cpm (95% CI: - 75.6 to - 50.9). Moderate VFI and severe VFI reduced RS by 9.5 cpm (95% CI: - 16.7 to - 2.4) and 38.1 cpm (95% CI: - 45.3 to - 31.0), and reduced MRS by 11.0 cpm (95% CI: - 19.0 to - 3.1) and 25.2 cpm (95% CI: - 33.1 to - 17.3), respectively. Under combined impairment, participants with mild VAI and severe VFI demonstrated an additional reduction in RS of - 20.1 cpm (95% CI: - 30.2 to - 10.0). Additional reductions in MRS were observed in participants with moderate VAI combined with moderate VFI (- 20.6 cpm; 95% CI: - 31.8 to - 9.4) and severe VFI (- 40.0 cpm; 95% CI: - 51.2 to - 28.8). RA and CPS were primarily influenced by VA. VF restriction only showed small effects on RA and no meaningful effect on CPS.
conclusionsBoth reduced VA and VF constriction significantly impaired reading performance, with VA loss emerging as the dominant factor. Under standardized simulation of low-vision conditions, combined impairments produced additional reductions in RS and MRS. These findings support the evaluation of reading performance in low-vision rehabilitation and earlier visual rehabilitation in patients with combined VA and VF impairments.
trial registrationThe study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400080206).
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.