Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Visual field assessment and driving licence eligibility in India: A hospital-based cross-sectional study.
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Commentary on: Is a visual field test really needed for a driving license?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
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
purposeTo determine the prevalence of visual field (VF) defect among Indian driving licence (DL) holders and to evaluate their eligibility according to UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) visual fitness standards.
methodDesign: This hospital-based cross-sectional observational study included individuals holding a valid Indian DL who were actively engaged in driving and visiting a tertiary care center in Western India. Participants underwent detailed demographic and driving history assessment, visual acuity (VA) evaluation, comprehensive anterior and posterior segment examination, and binocular Esterman visual field testing using the Humphrey Field Analyzer. VF results were interpreted according to UK-DVLA criteria due to the absence of defined national standards. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsA total of 1900 participants were included in the analysis. The mean age was 47.6 years (range, 18-82 years), and 93% were male. The best corrected visual acuity in the better eye was ≥6/18 in 99% of participants. Binocular VF defects were detected in 86 individuals (4.5%). All 86 participants with VF defects failed to meet the more stringent DVLA Group 2 criteria. Of these, 31 participants (1.6% of the total sample) also failed to meet the Group 1 criteria. VF defects were most frequent in 61-70 years (29%). Glaucoma (46.8%) was the leading cause, followed by retinal diseases (25.5%) and cataract (10.6%). Night-driving glare was reported by approximately one-third of participants.
conclusionA measurable proportion of active drivers were found to have VF defects that would disqualify them under international standards, despite having normal VA. Incorporating standardized VF testing into driver licensing and periodic renewal, with stricter reassessment beyond 40 years of age, could substantially improve road-traffic safety.
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.