ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Uncorrected Visual Acuity in Refractive Error Patients Aged Between 18-25 Years and 38-45 Years: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Refractive error is a widespread cause of decreased visual acuity, which can impact academic success, work productivity, and quality of life. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) provides baseline information regarding refractive status before optical correction. The purpose of this study was to compare UCVA between adults aged 18-25 years and 38-45 years. Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Optometry at the NSHM College of Management and Technology, Durgapur, West Bengal, India, between November 2025 and April 2026. A total of 300 participants undergoing refractive assessment were enrolled, comprising two equal age groups. Group A consisted of 150 individuals aged 18-25 years, and Group B consisted of 150 individuals aged 38-45 years. UCVA was measured using a Snellen chart and subsequently converted to logMAR values for statistical analysis. Each participant underwent a comprehensive refraction assessment and was included in the study only if their best-corrected visual acuity was 6/9 or better. Welch's independent-samples t-test was applied to compare UCVA between the groups, while categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test. Results The mean UCVA for the right eye was significantly poorer in the 18-25-year group than in the 38-45-year group (0.249 ± 0.199 vs. 0.142 ± 0.117 logMAR; mean difference: 0.107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.070-0.144; p < 0.001). Left eye UCVA was poorer in the younger group (0.187 ± 0.199 vs. 0.136 ± 0.120 logMAR; mean difference: 0.051; 95% CI: 0.014-0.088; p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in gender distribution between the groups (p = 0.160). The distribution of refractive errors varied significantly between the groups (p < 0.001), and compound myopic astigmatism was more prevalent in the 18-25-year group (149 eyes, 49.7%) compared with the 38-45-year group (1 eye, 0.3%). Conclusions The UCVA scores of participants aged 18-25 years were significantly lower than those of the 38-45-year-old participants. The poorer UCVA was mainly associated with higher compound myopic astigmatism, highlighting the need for regular refractive screening and timely optical correction among young adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.