ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2013
Crowded task performance in visually impaired children: magnifier versus large print.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optical reading aids for children and young people with low vision.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares the influence of two different types of magnification (magnifier versus large print) on crowded near vision task performance.
methodsFifty-eight visually impaired children aged 4-8 years participated. Participants were divided in two groups, matched on age and near visual acuity (NVA): [1] the magnifier group (4-6 year olds [n = 13] and 7-8 year olds [n = 19]), and [2] the large print group (4-6 year olds [n = 12] and 7-8 year olds [n = 14]). At baseline, single and crowded Landolt C acuity were measured at 40 cm without magnification. Crowded near vision was measured again with magnification. A 90 mm diameter dome magnifier was chosen to avoid measuring the confounding effect of navigational skills. The magnifier provided 1.7× magnification and the large print provided 1.8× magnification. Performance measures: [1] NVA without magnification at 40 cm, [2] near vision with magnification, and [3] response time. Working distance was monitored.
resultsThere was no difference in performance between the two types of magnification for the 4-6 year olds and the 7-8 year olds (p's = .291 and .246, respectively). Average NVA in the 4-6 year old group was 0.95 logMAR without and 0.42 logMAR with magnification (p < .001). Average NVA in the 7-8 year was 0.71 logMAR without and 0.01 logMAR with magnification (p < .001). Stronger crowding effects predicted larger improvements of near vision with magnification (p = .021).
conclusionsA magnifier is equally effective as large print in improving the performance of young children with a range of visual acuities on a crowded near vision task. Visually impaired children with stronger crowding effects showed larger improvements when working with magnification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23504083What 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.