ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2012
Use of prescribed optical devices in age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transitioning vision rehabilitation patients from over-the-counter magnifiers to prescribed aids.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2025Review
- Repeatability and Validity of MNREAD Test in Children With Vision Impairment.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Implantation of Scharioth macula lens in patients with age-related macular degeneration: results of a prospective European multicentre clinical trial.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Utilization and Abandonment of Low Vision Devices Prescribed on a Mobile Clinic.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018Article
- Reading charts in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Review
- [Requirements for low vision magnification aids in age-related macular degeneration: Data from the Tübingen low vision clinic (comparison of 2007-2011 with 1999-2005)].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate prescribed optical device use in terms of frequency and perceived usefulness among people with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We also sought to determine the tasks for which they were using their prescribed low vision device(s).
methodsOne hundred ninety-nine patients with AMD presenting for the first time to the low vision service were recruited from a university-based clinic. Prior to the low vision evaluation and device prescription, they completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire, and a general health questionnaire. The low vision evaluation included best-corrected Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity, MNREAD testing, microperimetry, prescription, and dispensing of optical low vision devices. Telephone follow-up interviews were conducted about device usage 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months postintervention.
resultsOne hundred eighty-one participants were prescribed low vision devices. Of them, 93% completed all 3 follow-up interviews. Intensive users (≥1 hours/day) of devices were similar in demographic and visual characteristics to non-intensive users (<1 hours/day), except for habitual reading acuity and speed as well as contrast sensitivity. Overall, device use increased slightly over 3 months of follow-up. Magnifiers were reported to be moderately-to-extremely useful by >80% of participants at all time points except the 1-month follow-up for hand magnifiers (75%). High plus spectacles were the least frequently prescribed device and rated as moderately-to-extremely useful by 70%, 74%, and 59% at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months, respectively. Most participants used their devices for leisure reading, followed by managing bills. Very few devices (n = 3, <1%) were not used at any time point.
conclusionsPatients with AMD who are provided with prescribed optical low vision devices do use them and perceive them as useful, especially for leisure reading activities. High rates of usage were maintained over 3 month.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.