ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Functional outcome of the low vision aids for visual impairment secondary to central nervous system tumors in children.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess functional outcomes of optical low vision aids (LVAs) for pediatric visual impairment due to central nervous system (CNS) tumors. A prospective case study was conducted on 15 children with history of CNS tumors with mean age of 10.47±1.85y. Lighthouse distance, near visual acuity tests, cycloplegic refraction, reading speed measurement and visual field examination were done. Prescription of far and near LVAs followed by training sessions. LVPrasad-functional vision questionnaire was done to evaluate performance. Visual impairment was moderate (13.3%), severe (73.3%), profound (6.7%) and near blindness in 6.7%. Telescopes prescribed in 33.4%, video magnifier in 46.7%. Questionnaire scores were significantly improved for distant rather than near tasks (
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.