Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31985055›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults.

Ruth Ma van Nispen, Gianni Virgili, Mirke Hoeben, Maaike Langelaan, Jeroen Klevering, Jan Ee Keunen, Ger Hmb van Rens

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Reading aids for adults with low vision.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Evolving Landscape of Vision Rehabilitation: Current Status and Future Directions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruth Ma van Nispen *Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gianni Virgili *University of Florence, Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), Largo Palagi, 1, Florence, Italy, 50134.
Mirke HoebenAmsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maaike LangelaanNetherlands institute for health services, NIVEL research, P.O. Box 1568, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3500 BN.
Jeroen KleveringRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jan Ee KeunenRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Ger Hmb van RensAmsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow vision rehabilitation aims to optimise the use of residual vision after severe vision loss, but also aims to teach skills in order to improve visual functioning in daily life. Other aims include helping people to adapt to permanent vision loss and improving psychosocial functioning. These skills promote independence and active participation in society. Low vision rehabilitation should ultimately improve quality of life (QOL) for people who have visual impairment.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation interventions on health-related QOL (HRQOL), vision-related QOL (VRQOL) or visual functioning and other closely related patient-reported outcomes in visually impaired adults. SEARCH

methodsWe searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers up to 18 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating HRQOL, VRQOL and related outcomes of adults, with an irreversible visual impairment (World Health Organization criteria). We included studies that compared rehabilitation interventions with active or inactive control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included 44 studies (73 reports) conducted in North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Considering the clinical diversity of low vision rehabilitation interventions, the studies were categorised into four groups of related intervention types (and by comparator): (1) psychological therapies and/or group programmes, (2) methods of enhancing vision, (3) multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, (4) other programmes. Comparators were no care or waiting list as an inactive control group, usual care or other active control group. Participants included in the reported studies were mainly older adults with visual impairment or blindness, often as a result of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Study settings were often hospitals or low vision rehabilitation services. Effects were measured at the short-term (six months or less) in most studies. Not all studies reported on funding, but those who did were supported by public or non-profit funders (N = 31), except for two studies. Compared to inactive comparators, we found very low-certainty evidence of no beneficial effects on HRQOL that was imprecisely estimated for psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.80; participants = 183; studies = 1) and an imprecise estimate suggesting little or no effect of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21; participants = 183; studies = 2; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn this Cochrane Review, no evidence of benefit was found of diverse types of low vision rehabilitation interventions on HRQOL. We found low- and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively, of a small benefit on VRQOL in studies comparing psychological therapies or methods for enhancing vision with active comparators. The type of rehabilitation varied among studies, even within intervention groups, but benefits were detected even if compared to active control groups. Studies were conducted on adults with visual impairment mainly of older age, living in high-income countries and often having AMD. Most of the included studies on low vision rehabilitation had a short follow-up, Despite these limitations, the consistent direction of the effects in this review towards benefit justifies further research activities of better methodological quality including longer maintenance effects and costs of several types of low vision rehabilitation. Research on the working mechanisms of components of rehabilitation interventions in different settings, including low-income countries, is also needed.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeDepressionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf EfficacyVision, Low

Identifiers

PMID31985055
PMCPMC6984642
OpenAlexW3002102878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.