ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Measuring visual and quality of life outcomes in nystagmus: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPathological nystagmus of all aetiologies can cause visual disability and reduced quality of life. Recent research has characterised the dynamic nature of the condition and questioned the validity of widely used outcome measures, such as visual acuity (VA), as an accurate measure of visual function in nystagmus. VA only describes the spatial resolving capacity of the visual system for high contrast stimuli, whereas good visual function requires numerous components including contrast sensitivity, colour vision, depth perception and oculomotor functions. For these reasons, the literature on nystagmus, particularly interventional studies, has been inconsistent with regard to the outcome measures used.
methodsWe performed a scoping literature review to characterise all published measures and instruments for determining functional vision and quality of life in patients with nystagmus.
resultsA total of 235 articles were included in the study, accounting for 5880 patients with nystagmus. Articles spanned six continents and eight decades of research. We identified 10 grouped outcome measures including VA (27 outcomes, 84 instruments), nystagmus features (33 outcomes, 4 instruments), visual function (11 outcomes, 30 instruments), ocular morphology (3 outcomes, 5 instruments), orthoptic and ocular alignment features (20 outcomes, 63 instruments), reading assessment (8 outcomes, 6 instruments), visual search assessment (4 outcomes, 4 instruments), foveation/function models (8 outcomes), patient-reported outcomes (30 outcomes) and non-ocular features (6 outcomes).
conclusionWe have confirmed that there is significant heterogeneity in visual function and quality of life outcome measures in the nystagmus literature. It is evident that one or few measures are insufficient to measure all the relevant outcomes from interventional nystagmus studies. Therefore, we propose a Delphi project using our data to determine a standardised core outcome set for interventional nystagmus studies.
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.