ArticleThe British journal of visual impairment2017
Effect of cane length and swing arc width on drop-off and obstacle detection with the long cane.
Article in The British journal of visual impairment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of white cane handle angle and technique on upper limb biomechanics and comfort in visually impaired users.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomechanics of Long Cane Use.Journal of visual impairment & blindness · 2019Article
- Obstacle Detection with the Long Cane: Effect of Cane Tip Design and Technique Modification on Performance.Journal of visual impairment & blindnessArticle
- Assessment of the effects of white cane variables on step symmetry of blind individuals.Oman journal of 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A repeated-measures design with block randomization was used for the study, in which 15 adults with visual impairments attempted to detect the drop-offs and obstacles with the canes of different lengths, swinging the cane in different widths (narrow vs wide). Participants detected the drop-offs significantly more reliably with the standard-length cane (79.5% ± 6.5% of the time) than with the extended-length cane (67.6% ± 9.1%),
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.