Discriminative capacity of the 6-item Vision-related Quality of life and Limitations questionnaire (VQL-6)
Dol, V. L.; Roelofs, A. A. J.; Fuermaier, A. B. M.; Vrijling, A. C. L.; Heutink, J.; Jansonius, N. M.
Show abstract
PurposeThe 6-item Vision-related Quality of life and Limitations questionnaire (VQL-6) is a screening instrument that signals a need for additional low vision care in patients with chronic ophthalmic diseases. This study aims to (1) determine the optimal scoring method for the VQL-6 and (2) evaluate its discriminative capacity for clinical use. MethodsPatients with glaucoma and retina- and cornea-related disorders completed the VQL-6 and participated in an interview designed to distinguish between patients with and without a need of additional care. For the two subscales (general health and quality of life, HQOL, and vision-related limitations, VL) we compared a scoring model with equal item weights to a cross-validated model using regression weights. The optimal scoring method and discriminative capacity of the subscales were determined using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, with the interview outcome as gold standard. Sensitivities were evaluated at specificities of 90 and 95%. ResultsIn 297 interview assessments, 96 patients (32%) appeared to need additional care. Both scoring models demonstrated very similar area under the ROC curves (AUC). The selected equal weight model yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.87-0.94) for VL and 0.71 (0.65-0.77) for HQOL. For VL, sensitivity was 72 and 64% at 90 and 95% specificity, respectively. Corresponding HQOL sensitivities were 34 and 17%. ConclusionsThe subscale VL shows excellent discriminative capacity and outperformed HQOL. Future studies should explore the feasibility of the VQL-6 in clinical practice.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The evaluation of a web‐based tool for measuring the uncorrected visual acuity and refractive error in keratoconus eyes: a prospective open‐label method comparison study 96%
- Prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in Kogi state, Nigeria – Findings from a Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness survey 95%
- A psychometric evaluation of the Chinese Impact of Vision Impairment (C-IVI) questionnaire in an adult cohort with high myopia using Rasch Analysis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Visual field evaluation using Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast in patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals 95%
- Relating Standardized Automated Perimetry Performed with Stimulus Sizes III and V in Eyes With Field Loss due to Glaucoma and NAION 95%
- Rates of Glaucoma Progression Derived from Linear Mixed Models Using Varied Random Effect Distributions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk Model for Intraoperative Complication during Cataract Surgery Based on Data from 900,000 Eyes – Previous Intravitreal Injection is a Risk Factor 96%
- Macula structural and vascular differences in glaucoma eyes with and without high axial myopia 95%
- Unveiling the Clinical Incapabilities: A Benchmarking Study of GPT-4V(ision) for Ophthalmic Multimodal Image Analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Refractive Error and Vision Impairment Estimation With Spectacle data (REVIEWS) study 95%
- Validity and Reliability of the CVI Range for Clinical Research (CVI Range-CR): Baseline and One-Year Results 95%
- Autonomous screening for Diabetic Macular Edema using deep learning processing of retinal images 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prevalence, incidence and risk factors for myopia among urban and rural children in southern China: protocol for a school-based cohort study 95%
- Diagnostic Performance of Deep Learning in Infectious Keratitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol 94%
- Functional changes of visual cortex in pre- and post- operative intermittent exotropia patients: study protocol for a non-randomized case-control clinical trial 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.