Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Feb 1;132(2):214–222. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5636

Figure 5. Median relative ratings of real and sham prism glasses from the comparison questionnaire.

Figure 5

(a) Ratings for obstacle avoidance and (b) ratings for vision comfort, grouped by whether participants selected real prism glasses (n = 37), sham prism glasses (n = 16) or neither pair of prism glasses (n = 8). Responses of participants who selected real prism glasses were significantly different from those who selected sham or neither. Participants who selected real prism glasses rated them as much better than the sham; whereas, those who selected sham glasses rated them as only slightly better than the real glasses. (Participants, still masked when this questionnaire was administered, gave rankings in terms of first pair or second pair, which were subsequently converted to real or sham. Scale: −2 = Sham much better; −1 = Sham slightly better; 0 = No difference; 1 = Real slightly better; 2 = Real much better). Thick vertical line within each box is the median; box length is the interquartile range (IQR); whiskers represent the range of the data within 1.5x IQR; open circle: outlier within 1.5x – 3x IQR; open triangle: far outlier beyond 3x IQR.