Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2017
Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Reading aids for adults with low vision.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- The Usefulness of a Wearable Electronic Vision Enhancement System for People With Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Trial
- Global Patterns of Visual Disability and Low Vision Aid Prescription: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- The Basic VRS-Effect Study: Clinical Trial Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Low Vision Rehabilitation in Portugal.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Article
- Validation and comparison of five preference-based measures among age-related macular degeneration patients: evidence from mainland China.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- The Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies for Older Adults and the Influence of Frailty: Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR aging · 2022Review
- Design considerations for the ideal low vision aid: insights from de-brief interviews following a real-world recording study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Review
- [Evaluation of the medical treatment situation of the visually impaired : Significant differences between young and old].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 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
- [Electronic vision aids : New options for rehabilitation of the visually impaired].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2018Review
- A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands.BMC ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Correction of perceived visual distortions using a software application and correlation to age-related macular degeneration.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well-being of people with a visual impairment.
methodsAn AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty-two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p-EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p-EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.
resultsThe mean cost of the p-EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p-EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p-EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.
conclusionPortable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices are likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost-effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well-being.
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.