ArticlePloS one2026
Functional acuity score as a surrogate of reading performance in low vision: A Japanese disability evaluation cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective cross-sectional study examined whether the Functional Acuity Score (FAS), an administrative impairment measure calculated from routine visual acuity data, was associated with reading performance in individuals undergoing formal visual disability evaluation. Thirty-one participants applying for visual disability certification at a tertiary eye hospital in Japan underwent Goldmann perimetry and MNREAD-J testing within 12 months. FAS, the Functional Field Score (FFS), and the Functional Vision Score (FVS) were calculated according to the AMA Guides. Their associations with reading outcomes, including critical print size (CPS) and the reading accessibility index (ACC), were assessed using correlation and multivariable regression analyses. FAS was strongly correlated with better-eye visual acuity (rho = 0.963) and showed the strongest associations with reading performance among the impairment measures. It was associated with CPS (rho = -0.82) and ACC (rho = 0.69) and remained associated with both outcomes in adjusted regression models, with R2 values of up to 0.76 after FAS was included. Field-based measures showed weak or inconsistent associations with reading parameters. The cohort consisted mainly of patients with glaucoma and other non-macular conditions (27/31, 87.1%). In this predominantly non-macular disability-evaluation cohort, FAS may provide an estimate of resolution-dependent reading performance when direct assessment is not available. However, only 4 of 31 participants had macular disease, and whether these findings apply to patients with macular pathology remains unclear.
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.