ReviewNeuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press)2017
Clinical versus Evidence-based Rehabilitation Options for Post-stroke Visual Impairment.
Review in Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptation to poststroke visual field loss: A systematic review.Brain and behavior · 2018Pooled it
- What V1 Damage Can Teach Us About Visual Perception and Learning.Annual review of vision science · 2025Review
- Are Optometrists Prepared to Be Involved in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Visual Field Loss: Integrating Overlayed Information to Increase the Effective Field of View.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Development of core outcome sets for vision screening and assessment in stroke: a Delphi and consensus study.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify which treatments for post-stroke visual impairment have a supportive evidence base, and which are being used in practice without supportive evidence. A systematic review of the literature reporting on the available treatment options was compared against the visual treatments used in the Vision In Stroke (VIS) study. Treatments were identified for visual field, visual neglect, visual perception and ocular motility disorders. Visual scanning therapies for hemianopia and neglect have an established evidence base. However, a number, such as typoscopes and advice options, have limited detail of their effectiveness and require further research.
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.