Development and Validation of a Visual Symptom–Specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Instrument for Adults With Cataract Intraocular Lens Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSETo develop a patient-reported outcome measure for capturing visual and ocular symptoms before and after implantation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) for treatment of cataracts.DESIGNQuestionnaire development and validation study.METHODSThe Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID) was developed based on a literature and instrument review; 13 clinician interviews among ophthalmologists in the United States and Europe; and 67 hybrid qualitative patient interviews among adult patients in the United States and Australia before and/or after monofocal, traditional multifocal, or trifocal IOL implantation. Assessment of the QUVID's psychometric properties was conducted via a noninterventional cross-sectional study of previously treated cataract patients in the United States, Canada, and Australia (n = 150), and assessment of ability to detect meaningful change via 2 pivotal US clinical trials among patients with trifocal or extended vision IOL compared with monofocal IOL controls (n = 457).RESULTSThe QUVID includes subitems about the bothersomeness of 7 visual symptoms: starburst, halo, glare, hazy vision, blurred vision, double vision, and dark areas. The postoperative version contains 1 item asking the respondents whether their symptoms bothered them enough to want another surgery, if the IOL was the cause.CONCLUSIONSThe QUVID was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration and found appropriate as a fit-for-purpose measure, demonstrating requisite evidence for content validity, construct validity, reliability, and ability to detect change. To develop a patient-reported outcome measure for capturing visual and ocular symptoms before and after implantation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) for treatment of cataracts. Questionnaire development and validation study. The Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID) was developed based on a literature and instrument review; 13 clinician interviews among ophthalmologists in the United States and Europe; and 67 hybrid qualitative patient interviews among adult patients in the United States and Australia before and/or after monofocal, traditional multifocal, or trifocal IOL implantation. Assessment of the QUVID's psychometric properties was conducted via a noninterventional cross-sectional study of previously treated cataract patients in the United States, Canada, and Australia (n = 150), and assessment of ability to detect meaningful change via 2 pivotal US clinical trials among patients with trifocal or extended vision IOL compared with monofocal IOL controls (n = 457). The QUVID includes subitems about the bothersomeness of 7 visual symptoms: starburst, halo, glare, hazy vision, blurred vision, double vision, and dark areas. The postoperative version contains 1 item asking the respondents whether their symptoms bothered them enough to want another surgery, if the IOL was the cause. The QUVID was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration and found appropriate as a fit-for-purpose measure, demonstrating requisite evidence for content validity, construct validity, reliability, and ability to detect change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".