Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26040791›Full record

ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2015

[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)].

E K Altpeter, N X Nguyen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Low vision aids provision in an urban setting in Germany between 2014 and 2017: a regional population based study with healthcare claims data.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Intraocular lenses in age-related macular degeneration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017
    Review
  5. [Ophthalmological rehabilitation of visually impaired children].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017
    Article
  6. [Internet search for counseling offers for older adults suffering from visual impairment].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E K AltpeterSehbehindertenambulanz der Universitäts-Augenklinik, Tübingen, Deutschland. elke.altpeter@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
N X NguyenSehbehindertenambulanz der Universitäts-Augenklinik, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Universitäts-Augenklinik Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to investigate if there has been a change in requirements for low vision magnification aids in recent years. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe collective data from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients from the Tübingen low vision clinic from the years 2007-2011 were compared with the patient collective from the years 1999-2005. Magnification needs and the prescribed magnifying aids for reading in the categories magnifying spectacles, hand-held magnifiers, monocular telescopes, electronic magnifiers and electronic reading devices were evaluated. In addition patients from 2010 and 2011 were divided into dry and neovascular AMD and the prescribed magnification aids were compared for these AMD forms.

resultsThere was no significant change in in the prescribed magnification reading aids for AMD patients between the years 1999-2005 and 2007-2011. An electronic magnifier was prescribed most often (both collectives 43 %), followed by hand-held magnifiers (32 and 29.5 %, respectively) and magnifying spectacles (17 and 18.8 %, respectively). Also the magnifying needs and mean age of the AMD patients did not change significantly between the two periods (2007-2011 versus 1999-2005). The detailed analysis for dry and neovascular AMD for the years 2010 and 2011 showed no significant differences for the most commonly prescribed low vision aids. The prescription of low vision aids is not influenced by the AMD classification (dry or neovascular), only by the magnification needs.

conclusionThere is an unchanged and still high demand for rehabilitation aids of AMD patients, for dry as well as for neovascular AMD even after the introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy.

Indexed as

Sensory AidsAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionEyeglassesGermanyHumansMacular DegenerationNeeds AssessmentPersons with Visual DisabilitiesPrescriptionsPrevalenceSex DistributionVision, LowMagnification needsPrescription of low vision aidsReading aidsRehabilitationVisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID26040791
OpenAlexW567722286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.