Literature DB >> 12049583

How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation.

Sheila K West1, Gary S Rubin, Aimee T Broman, Beatriz Muñoz, Karen Bandeen-Roche, Kathleen Turano.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between performance on selected tasks of everyday life and impairment in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.
METHODS: Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were obtained on a population-based sample of 2520 older African American and white subjects. Performance was assessed on mobility, daily activities with a strong visual component, and visually intensive tasks. Disability was defined as performance less than 1 SD below the mean. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of thresholds in acuity and contrast loss for determining disability.
RESULTS: Both visual acuity and contrast sensitivity loss were associated with decrements in function. The relationship of function to the vision measures was mostly linear, therefore, receiver operating characteristic curves were not helpful in identifying cutoff points for predicting disabilities. For mobility tasks, most persons were not disabled until they had significant acuity loss (logMAR visual acuity >1.0 or <20/200) or contrast sensitivity loss (0.9 log units contrast sensitivity). For heavily visually intensive tasks, like reading, visual acuity worse than 0.2 logMAR (20/30) or contrast sensitivity worse than 1.4 log units was disabling.
CONCLUSIONS: Both contrast sensitivity and visual acuity loss contribute independently to deficits in performance on everyday tasks. Defining disability as deficits in performance relative to a population, it is possible to identify visual acuity and contrast loss where most are disabled. However, the cutoff points depend on the task, suggesting that defining disability using a single threshold for visual acuity or contrast sensitivity loss is arbitrary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12049583     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  119 in total

1.  Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases.

Authors:  Ian J Saldanha; Kristina Lindsley; Diana V Do; Roy S Chuck; Catherine Meyerle; Leslie S Jones; Anne L Coleman; Henry D Jampel; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 7.389

2.  Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability.

Authors:  Eva Stifter; Franz König; Thomas Lang; Peter Bauer; Sibylla Richter-Müksch; Michaela Velikay-Parel; Wolfgang Radner
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-12-10       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  Normal variants of competence to consent to treatment.

Authors:  Abraham Rudnick; David Roe
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-06

4.  Non-standard vision measures predict mortality in elders: the Smith-Kettlewell Institute (SKI) study.

Authors:  Lori A Lott; Marilyn E Schneck; Gunilla Haegerström-Portnoy; John A Brabyn
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.648

5.  False reaching movements in localization test and effect of auditory feedback in simulated ultra-low vision subjects and patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Authors:  Takao Endo; Hiroyuki Kanda; Masakazu Hirota; Takeshi Morimoto; Kohji Nishida; Takashi Fujikado
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Visual Acuity and Self-Reported Vision Status.

Authors:  Caitlin E Coyle; Bernard A Steinman; Jie Chen
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2016-07-09

7.  Impact of cataract surgery on vision-related life performances: the usefulness of Real-Life Vision Test for cataract surgery outcomes evaluation.

Authors:  W Ni; X Li; Z Hou; H Zhang; W Qiu; W Wang
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 8.  Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts.

Authors:  Kavitha Thayaparan; Michael D Crossland; Gary S Rubin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Rehabilitation Referral for Patients With Irreversible Vision Impairment Seen in a Public Safety-Net Eye Clinic.

Authors:  M Austin Coker; Carrie E Huisingh; Gerald McGwin; Russell W Read; Mark W Swanson; Laura E Dreer; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lindsay Gregg; Cynthia Owsley
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 7.389

10.  Longitudinal relationships among visual acuity and tasks of everyday life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation study.

Authors:  Byron L Lam; Sharon L Christ; D Diane Zheng; Sheila K West; Beatriz E Munoz; Bonnielin K Swenor; David J Lee
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.