Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2014
Cognitive speed of processing training in older adults with visual impairments.
Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Positive impacts of early auditory training on cortical processing at an older age.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Vision and hearing difficulty and effects of cognitive training in older adults.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine whether older adults with vision impairment differentially benefit from cognitive speed of processing training (SPT) relative to healthy older adults.
methodsSecondary data analyses were conducted from a randomised trial on the effects of SPT among older adults. The effects of vision impairment as indicated by (1) near visual acuity, (2) contrast sensitivity, (3) self-reported cataracts and (4) self-reported other eye conditions (e.g., glaucoma, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, optic neuritis, and retinopathy) among participants randomised to either SPT or a social- and computer-contact control group was assessed. The primary outcome was Useful Field of View Test (UFOV) performance.
resultsMixed repeated-measures ancovas demonstrated that those randomized to SPT experienced greater baseline to post-test improvements in UFOV performance relative to controls (p's < 0.001), regardless of impairments in near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity or presence of cataracts. Those with other eye conditions significantly benefitted from training (p = 0.044), but to a lesser degree than those without such conditions. Covariates included age and baseline measures of balance and depressive symptoms, which were significantly correlated with baseline UFOV performance.
conclusionsAmong a community-based sample of older adults with and without visual impairment and eye disease, the SPT intervention was effective in enhancing participants' UFOV performance. The analyses presented here indicate the potential for SPT to enhance UFOV performance among a community-based sample of older adults with visual impairment and potentially for some with self-reported eye disease; further research to explore this area is warranted, particularly to determine the effects of eye diseases on SPT benefits.
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.