4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Visual acuity change and mortality in older adults

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 4040-4045

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0687

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG16294] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. Several studies indicate an increased mortality rate in older adults who have visual impairment, but few have attempted to address a potential causal mechanism. The goals of this study are to determine whether visual acuity loss increases the risk of dying and to examine whether depressive symptoms act as a mediator in this relationship. METHODS. Data were derived from the 2520 older adults who participated in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project, a population-based prospective 8-year cohort study. Presenting binocular visual acuity was measured with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] eye chart and depressive symptoms with the General Health Questionnaire Part D subscale. Mortality data were collected by staff follow-up. Analyses were performed with the Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS. Worse baseline acuity was associated with a higher mortality rate ( hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 - 1.09). Also, those who gained two or more lines of visual acuity over 2 years had a lower adjusted risk of dying ( HR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23 - 0.95). An interaction was detected, in that women who lost >= 3 lines of visual acuity over a 2-year period had a higher adjusted risk of dying ( HR = 3.97; 95% CI, 2.21 - 7.15), whereas men did not ( HR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66 - 2.63). Depressive symptoms did not mediate these relationships. CONCLUSIONS. If the relationship between visual acuity and mortality is indeed causal, it most likely acts via numerous pathways through a variety of intervening variables. The identification of these intervening variables could give additional targets for intervention if acuity cannot be restored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据