Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29485207›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2018

Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic.

Micaela Gobeille, Alexis Malkin, Richard Jamara, Nicole C Ross

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07741812 (Evaluation of The Effectiveness Of Reading Rehabilitation Module On Reading Performance And Quality of Life In Patients With Glaucoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07741812 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of The Effectiveness Of Reading Rehabilitation Module On Reading Performance And Quality of Life In Patients With Glaucoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversiti Sains MalaysiaRan2026 to 2027Enrolled100ConditionsPrimary Open Angle Glaucoma (POAG), Juvenile Open Angle Glaucoma, Normotensive Glaucoma, Primary Angle Closure GlaucomaArmsReading Rehabilitation Module
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Utilization and Abandonment of Low Vision Devices Prescribed on a Mobile Clinic.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Micaela GobeilleNew England College of Optometry, Boston, USA.
Alexis MalkinNew England College of Optometry, Boston, USA.
Richard JamaraNew England College of Optometry, Boston, USA.
Nicole C RossNew England College of Optometry, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3186-1682
New England College of Optometry · US

Funding

SHORT TERM RES TRAINING AT THE NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OFT35EY007149 · NEI · NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY · PI Athanasios Panorgias · 1999 to 2026
$1.5M
NEI NIH HHS T35 EY007149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis prospective cohort study examined clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivered by a mobile clinic.

methodsParticipants were recruited from those scheduled for mobile clinic LVR and met the United States definition of legal blindness. Participants completed the Massof Activity Inventory (AI) before LVR, 3 months post-LVR, and 1 year post-LVR. Change scores and measures of clinical effect (i.e. Cohen's effect size and minimum clinically important difference, MCID) were calculated for each time point and compared. Additional participant characteristics (age, acuity, contrast sensitivity, cause of visual impairment, training recommendations, and prior LVR experience) were also explored with respect to outcome measures.

resultsOf the 66 participants enroled in this study, 47% had no prior LVR experience. Significant differences were noted between baseline and 3-month person measures, and between baseline and 1-year person measures. There was no significant difference between 3-month and 1-year person measures, nor was there a significant difference in change score between these two time points. At 1 year post-LVR, overall visual ability effect size was 0.74. A clinically meaningful outcome was achieved in 56% of participants at 3 months and 71% at 1 year for overall visual ability. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants achieving MCID at 3 months vs 1 year. Of participants who completed the 1-year post-LVR AI, 59% reported a subjective worsening of vision during the study period. This subgroup also tended to have smaller 1-year change scores.

conclusionsMobile clinic LVR is effective at expanding access to care and produces clinically meaningful outcomes comparable to those seen in other outpatient LVR delivery models.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeActivities of Daily LivingAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMobile Health UnitsPersons with Visual DisabilitiesProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesVision, LowVisual Acuityepidemiologylow vision

Identifiers

PMID29485207
PMCPMC6448563
OpenAlexW2790820148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.