The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Visual Field Defects and the Risk of Motor Vehicle Collisions among Patients with Glaucoma
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between visual field defects in the central 24 degrees field and the risk of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) among patients with glaucoma. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted in patients with glaucoma aged 55 or more. Cases were patients who were involved in a police-reported motor vehicle collision (MVC) between January 1994 and June 2000; controls were those who had not experienced an MVC at the time of their selection. For each patient, an Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) score was calculated on automated visual fields collected with the 24-2 or 3-2 programs. RESULTS: With respect to the better-eye AGIS score, compared with patients with no visual field defect, those with severe defects (scores 12-20) had an increased risk of an MVC (odds ratio [OR] 3.2, 95% CI 0.9-10.4), although the association was not statistically significant. Moderate (6-11) or minor field defects (1-5) in the better eye were not associated with the risk of involvement in a crash. In the worse eye, patients with moderate or severe field defects were at significantly increased risk of an MVC (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.4 and OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.6-12.4, respectively) compared with those with no defects. Minor field defects in the worse eye did not increase risk of MVC (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.5-3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with glaucoma who have moderate or severe visual field impairment in the central 24 degrees radius field in the worse-functioning eye are at increased risk of involvement in a vehicle crash.
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
Simulation Study of Confounder-Selection Strategies
Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116813 · Cited by 2,491
Cited by
Weinreb, R. N., Leung, C. K. S., Crowston, J. G., Medeiros, F. A., Friedman, D. S., Wiggs, J. L., & Martin, K. R. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.67 · Cited by 632
Owsley, C., & McGwin, G. (2010) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.021 · Cited by 451
Self-citationGlaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease?
Ramulu, P. (2009) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e32832401a9 · Cited by 326
Risk of Falls and Motor Vehicle Collisions in Glaucoma
Haymes, S. A., LeBlanc, R. P., Nicolela, M. T., Chiasson, L. A., & Chauhan, B. C. (2007) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0886 · Cited by 311
Jones, P. R., Somoskeöy, T., Chow-Wing-Bom, H., & Crabb, D. P. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0242-6 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- McGwin, G., Xie, A., Mays, A., Joiner, W., DeCarlo, D. K., Hall, T. A., & Owsley, C.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4437
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W1987226423
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.