Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

National Study of Cataract Surgery Outcomes

Open access
Steinberg, Earl P., Tielsch, James M., Schein, Oliver D., Javitt, Jonathan C., Sharkey, Phoebe, Cassard, Sandra D., Legro, Marcia W., Diener-West, Marie, Bass, Eric B., Damiano, Anne M., Steinwachs, Donald M., Sommer, Alfred·1994·Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although ophthalmologists have long recognized that visual acuity alone is an inadequate measure of visual impairment, the need for and outcomes of cataract surgery historically have been assessed in terms of visual acuity. PURPOSE: To examine the relation among different cataract surgery outcome measures, including a 14-item instrument designed to measure functional impairment caused by cataract (the VF-14), at 4 months after cataract surgery. METHODS: The authors performed a longitudinal study of 552 patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery by 1 of 75 ophthalmologists practicing in Columbus, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, or Houston, Texas. Patients were interviewed, and clinical data were obtained preoperatively (July 15, 1991-March 14, 1992) and 4 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The percentage of patients judged to be improved at 4 months after cataract surgery varied by the outcome measure used: Snellen visual acuity (96%); VF-14 score (89%); satisfaction with vision (85%); self-reported trouble with vision (80%); and Sickness Impact Profile score (67%). The change in patients' ratings of their trouble with vision and their satisfaction with vision were correlated more strongly with the change in VF-14 score than with the change in visual acuity (operated eye or better eye). The average change in VF-14 score was unrelated to the preoperative visual acuity in the eye undergoing surgery. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the proportion of patients benefiting from cataract surgery vary with the outcome measure used to measure benefit. Change in VF-14 score, a measure of functional impairment related to vision, may be a better measure of the benefit of cataract surgery than change in visual acuity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31210-3

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Steinberg, E. P., Tielsch, J. M., Schein, O. D., Javitt, J. C., Sharkey, P., Cassard, S. D., Legro, M. W., Diener-West, M., Bass, E. B., Damiano, A. M., Steinwachs, D. M., & Sommer, A.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-06
Volume
101
Issue
6
Pages
1131-1141
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1577768459
Cited by
276
References
12
FWCI
16.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: National Study of Cataract Surgery Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31210-3
The paper
Steinberg, E. P., Tielsch, J. M., Schein, O. D., Javitt, J. C., Sharkey, P., Cassard, S. D., Legro, M. W., Diener-West, M., Bass, E. B., Damiano, A. M., Steinwachs, D. M., & Sommer, A. (1994). National Study of Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31210-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.