ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2019
[Evaluation of the medical treatment situation of the visually impaired : Significant differences between young and old].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual rehabilitation of patients with corneal diseases.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Trial
- Medication Trends for Age-Related Macular Degeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePatients with irreversible visual impairment need individual visual rehabilitation to regain or improve reading ability and mobility. To analyze the prescription of low vision aids (LVA) and their relation to age, we performed a retrospective chart analysis of our specialized low vision outpatient clinic.
methodsPatient charts of all patients who attended our low vision outpatient clinic from 2014-2016 were analyzed with respect to the diagnosis, visual acuity, magnification needs, age and prescribed or used LVA.
resultsThe evaluation comprised data from 1548 patients (age 0-97 years). Most patients (72%) were underage (<18 years). Retinoblastoma (11%), congenital cataract (10%) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD, 6%) were the most frequent diagnoses. Mean magnification need of the 568 patients with LVAs was 9.9 ± 7. Desktop video magnifiers (22%), cut-off filter spectacles (15%) and electronic magnifiers (13%) were most commonly prescribed. Children and juveniles used smart phones and tablets (smart devices) as a LVA significantly more often (8% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.01) compared to older visually impaired patients (>60 years). Electronic magnifying devices were more often prescribed to these older patients (30% vs. 3%, p < 0.01).
conclusionThe visual rehabilitation showed significant differences between underage and older visually impaired patients. Children and juveniles needed electronic magnifiers less often because they used smart devices as a mobile LVA. This significant difference might be due to much lower social stigmatization of smart devices and the higher affinity to technology of this age group. Based on the positive experiences of younger visually impaired patients, such smart devices should also be introduced to older patients.
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.