Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31583549›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020

Biofeedback fixation training method for improving eccentric vision in patients with loss of foveal function secondary to different maculopathies.

Marco U Morales, Saker Saker, Craig Wilde, Martin Rubinstein, Paolo Limoli, Winfried M Amoaku

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05904444 (The Effect of Duration Between Sessions on Microperimetric Biofeedback Training in Patients With Maculopathies), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05904444 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Duration Between Sessions on Microperimetric Biofeedback Training in Patients With Maculopathies

TypeinterventionalSponsorAier Eye Hospital, GuangzhouRan2018 to 2023Enrolled29ConditionsMacular Degeneration, Low Vision, Stargardt DiseaseArmsmicroperimetric biofeedback training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco U MoralesAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. marcoulisesmorales@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1508-2753
Saker SakerAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Craig WildeAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Martin RubinsteinDepartment of Optometry, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.
Paolo LimoliCentro Studi Ipovisione, Milan, Italy.
Winfried M AmoakuAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBCentro Studi GISED · ITUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFixation stability (FS) of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) may be improved by biofeedback fixation training (BFT) with microperimetry. Such training can be done on the patient's PRL or in different retinal loci with better functional characteristics. We studied both options and compared the outcomes.

methodsSixty-seven consecutive patients with bilateral central vision loss, poor FS and visual acuity (VA) lower than 0.3 LogMAR were recruited for BFT with microperimeter. Patients were assigned into 2 groups. In group A, BFT was performed on the patient's spontaneous PRL. In group B, PRL was located between 2 adjacent loci with the highest light sensitivity and the lowest distance from the fovea. Two sets of 12 weekly BFT sessions were performed. Primary outcomes were: FS, VA and reading speed.

resultsOutcomes were statistically significantly better in group B. Mean percentage of FS at therapy end improved from 32 to 35% for group A and from 40 to 55% in group B. Mean VA improved from 1 to 0.86 in group A and from 1 to 0.84 in group B. Reading speed (wpm) improved from 56 to 58 in group A and from 63 to 89 in group B.

conclusionsThis study describes a reliable methodology of improving eccentric fixation stability using BFT in microperimetry, when the fixation training locus is individualized as the retinal area with best functional characteristics. Further studies are needed to validate its value in a larger scale of patients, at different stages of the disease, and its persistence over time.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAgedBiofeedback, PsychologyFemaleFixation, OcularFollow-Up StudiesFovea CentralisHumansMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesScotomaTreatment OutcomeVisual FieldsLow visionMaculaRehabilitationRetinaVisual function

Identifiers

PMID31583549
OpenAlexW2978475462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.