Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk of Falls and Motor Vehicle Collisions in Glaucoma

Open access
Haymes, Sharon A., LeBlanc, Raymond P., Nicolela, Marcelo T., Chiasson, Lorraine A., Chauhan, Balwantray C.·2007·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
DOI 10.1167/iovs.06-0886
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: The sample comprised 48 patients with glaucoma (mean visual field mean deviation [MD] in the better eye = -3.9 dB; 5.1 dB SD) and 47 age-matched normal control subjects, who were recruited from a university-based hospital eye care clinic and are enrolled in an ongoing prospective study of risk factors for falls, risk factors for MVCs, and on-road driving performance in glaucoma. Main outcome measures at baseline were previous self-reported falls and MVCs, and police-reported MVCs. Demographic and medical data were obtained. In addition, functional independence in daily living, physical activity level and balance were assessed. Clinical vision measures included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, standard automated perimetry, useful field of view (UFOV), and stereopsis. Analyses of falls and MVCs were adjusted to account for the possible confounding effects of demographic characteristics, medications, and visual field impairment. MVC analyses were also adjusted for kilometers driven per week. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with glaucoma and control subjects with respect to number of systemic medical conditions, body mass index, functional independence, and physical activity level (P > 0.10). At baseline, 40 (83%) patients with glaucoma and 44 (94%) control subjects were driving. Compared with control subjects, patients with glaucoma were over three times more likely to have fallen in the previous year (odds ratio [OR](adjusted) = 3.71; 95% CI, 1.14-12.05), over six times more likely to have been involved in one or more MVCs in the previous 5 years (OR(adjusted) = 6.62; 95% CI, 1.40-31.23), and more likely to have been at fault (OR(adjusted) = 12.44; 95% CI, 1.08-143.99). The strongest risk factor for MVCs in patients with glaucoma was impaired UFOV selective attention (OR(adjusted) = 10.29; 95% CI, 1.10-96.62; for selective attention >350 ms compared with </=350 ms). CONCLUSIONS: There is an increased risk of falls and MVCs in patients with glaucoma.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.06-0886

Cites

47 of 47 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

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Haymes, S. A., LeBlanc, R. P., Nicolela, M. T., Chiasson, L. A., & Chauhan, B. C.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2007-03-01
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
1149
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
DOI
10.1167/iovs.06-0886
OpenAlex
W1988851655
Cited by
311
References
47
FWCI
34.36
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

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.