ReviewThe patient2017
Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review.
Review in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions Within the Scope of Occupational Therapy Practice to Improve Performance of Daily Activities for Older Adults With Low Vision: A Systematic Review.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy AssociationPooled it
- Delayed Postural Responses to Fear of Falling During Gait Initiation in Low Vision: Insights from Virtual-Reality-Based Fear Simulation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring patient-reported outcomes to assess progress in inpatient low vision rehabilitation.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding floaters among patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of the Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-SCOPE) Questionnaire.American journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Implementation of PROMISPatient related outcome measures · 2021Article
- Expansion of Peripheral Visual Field with Novel Virtual Reality Digital Spectacles.American journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Toward Improving the Mobility of Patients with Peripheral Visual Field Defects with Novel Digital Spectacles.American journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice.Patient related outcome measures · 2019Review
- A Novel Vision-Enhancing Technology for Low-Vision Impairments.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- Development of the Ultra-Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (ULV-VFQ).Translational vision science & technology · 2017Article
- Head-Mounted Display Technology for Low-Vision Rehabilitation and Vision Enhancement.American journal of ophthalmology · 2017Review
- Comment on "Clinical effectiveness of currently available low-vision devices in glaucoma patients with moderate-to-severe vision loss".Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- The key informant strategy to determine the prevalence and causes of functional low vision among children in South India.Ophthalmic epidemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) aims to improve the functioning of patients with chronic uncorrectable visual impairment. LVR is inherently a patient-centered intervention since its approach and goals are dictated by the needs and abilities of each individual patient. Accordingly, it is essential to have patient-centered outcome (PCO) measures to assess and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of low-vision interventions; however, there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of LVR interventions. We reviewed the literature in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of LVR and the outcome measures used to assess patient functioning in these trials. We identified 15 RCTs of LVR that employed nine unique patient-reported, five unique performance-based, and one hybrid (combined patient-reported and performance) outcome measures. Since these trials used distinct tools to assess patient functioning, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of competing rehabilitation interventions across studies. Selecting valid outcome measures that are both relevant to LVR goals of specific patient populations and that measure functioning across a range of visually demanding tasks could improve the ability to detect the effect of LVR and to compare rehabilitation strategies. There are advantages and limitations to the use of both patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures, and additional work should be undertaken to explore the relationship between these modes of assessment, as well as strategies for optimally integrating these approaches. Careful selection of outcome measures in the design of future RCTs in LVR may lead to improved understanding of the effectiveness of LVR and, ultimately, to improved functioning of patients with low vision.
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.