The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To ascertain utility values associated with varying degrees of legal blindness. METHODS: A cross sectional study on three group of patients. There were: (1) 15 patients with complete absence of vision (no light perception) in at least one eye who were asked to assume a scenario of no light perception in the second eye as well, (2) 17 patients with light perception to counting fingers in the better seeing eye, and (3) 33 patients with 20/200-20/400 vision in the better seeing eye. Utility values were measured using the time trade-off and standard gamble methods in each of the three groups. RESULTS: The mean time trade-off utility value for the no light perception group with the theoretical scenario of bilateral absence of light perception was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.19-0.33). The mean utility value for the light perception to counting fingers group was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.33-0.61), and the mean utility value for the 20/200-20/400 group was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.72). Thus, patients with no light perception in one eye, who were presented with the same scenario in the second eye as well, were willing to trade almost 3 out of every 4 years of remaining life in return for perfect vision in each eye. Those with light perception to counting fingers would trade approximately 1 of 2 remaining years and those with 20/200-20/400 would trade approximately 1 of 3 remaining years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of utility values associated with legal blindness. The utility value decreases dramatically with perceived total loss of vision (absence of light perception in each eye), compared with counting fingers to light perception vision, indicating that the preservation of even small amounts of vision in patients with legal blindness is critically important to their wellbeing and functioning in life.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Incorporating Patients' Preferences into Medical Decisions
Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406303302611 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Defeating Alzheimer's disease and other dementias: a priority for European science and society
Winblad, B., Amouyel, P., Andrieu, S., Ballard, C., Brayne, C., Brodaty, H., Cedazo-Minguez, A., Dubois, B., Edvardsson, D., Feldman, H., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(16)00062-4 · Cited by 1,676
Sankaridurg, P., Tahhan, N., Kandel, H., Naduvilath, T., Zou, H., Frick, K. D., Marmamula, S., Friedman, D. S., Lamoureux, E., Keeffe, J., et al. (2021) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.62.5.2 · Cited by 435
Quality of life in age-related macular degeneration: a review of the literature
Mitchell, J., & Bradley, C. (2006) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-97 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, M. M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-03-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 327-331
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169446282
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.85.3.327
- The paper
- Brown, M. M. (2001). Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.3.327
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.