↓ Skip to main content

The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) – reference data from the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) – reference data from the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0732-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Nickels, Alexander K. Schuster, Susanne Singer, Philipp S. Wild, Dagmar Laubert-Reh, Andreas Schulz, Robert P. Finger, Matthias Michal, Manfred E. Beutel, Thomas Münzel, Karl J. Lackner, Norbert Pfeiffer

Abstract

To estimate the burden of diseases, it is important to consider patient-reported outcomes including Quality of Life (QoL). The aim of this study is to provide population-based reference data for the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), stratified by sex and age. The Gutenberg Health Study (GHS) is a population-based, prospective, observational cohort study in Germany, including 15,010 participants aged between 35 and 74. The baseline examination was conducted between 2007 and 2012. To overcome known shortcomings of the NEI VFQ-25, we calculated the previously proposed visual functioning scale and the socio-emotional scale based on Rasch-transformed person-level data. We present mean values, standard deviations and percentiles for age decades stratified by sex. We used a linear regression model to assess the influence of age, sex, socioeconomic status, distance-corrected visual acuity (better-seeing eye) and the absolute difference in distance-corrected visual acuity of both eyes on vision-related QoL. NEI VFQ-25 data are available from 12,231 participants (82%). Both the long-form visual functioning scale (LFVFS) and the long-form socio-emotional scale (LFSES) showed a clear age dependency, with an average LFVFS score of 92.8 for men and 90.5 for women in the youngest age group and 85.7 and 83.4 in the oldest age group, and a LFSES score of 98.3 for men and 98.1 in women in the youngest and 94.7 and 94.5 in the oldest decade. The largest difference was observed between the youngest age group (35-44 years) and the 45-54 years group. Men tended to have slightly higher scores than women. In the multivariable linear regression analysis, age (per 5 years -0.42), female sex (-1.57), worse distance-corrected visual acuity of the better eye (per 0.1 increase in logMAR -2.92) and the difference between both eyes (per 0.1 increase in logMAR -0.87) were associated with a reduced LFVFS score (all p < 0.001). For the LFSES score, we showed that the influence of sex was minor, and that age (per 5 years -0.22), visual acuity of the better eye (-1.65), and the difference between both eyes (-0.56) were associated with a lower score (all p < 0.001). We report age- and sex-specific reference data from a large population-based study of mainly Caucasian ethnicity of two unidimensional scores based on Rasch-transformed NEI VFQ-25 data. Vision-related QoL is lower in older and in female individuals. Our results support the association of vision-related QoL not only with the distance-corrected visual acuity of the better eye but also with the difference in visual acuity between each eye. Our findings could be used as a reference for comparison in future studies addressing the influence of eye diseases on vision-related QoL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 28 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,474,679
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,354
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,363
of 317,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#32
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.