Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34292298›Full record

Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2021

Home-Use Evaluation of a Wearable Collision Warning Device for Individuals With Severe Vision Impairments: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shrinivas Pundlik, Vilte Baliutaviciute, Mojtaba Moharrer, Alex R Bowers, Gang Luo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03057496 (Wearable Collision Warning Device for Blind and Visually Impaired), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT03057496 nacompletednot on this map

Wearable Collision Warning Device for Blind and Visually Impaired: Clinical Trial (As Part of: 'Development of a Vision Assistive Device for Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury-Associated Visual Dysfunctions')

TypeinterventionalSponsorMassachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryRan2018 to 2019Enrolled49ConditionsHemianopia, Hemianopsia, Peripheral Visual Field Defect, BlindnessArmsCollision warning device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shrinivas PundlikSchepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Vilte BaliutaviciuteSchepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mojtaba MoharrerSchepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alex R BowersSchepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gang LuoSchepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · USFamily Research Institute · USHarvard University · USMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThere is scant rigorous evidence about the real-world mobility benefit of electronic mobility aids.

objectiveTo evaluate the effect of a collision warning device on the number of contacts experienced by blind and visually impaired people in their daily mobility. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsIn this double-masked randomized clinical trial, participants used a collision warning device during their daily mobility over a period of 4 weeks. A volunteer sample of 31 independently mobile individuals with severe visual impairments, including total blindness and peripheral visual field restrictions, who used a long cane or guide dog as their habitual mobility aid completed the study. The study was conducted from January 2018 to December 2019.

interventionsThe device automatically detected collision hazards using a chest-mounted video camera. It randomly switched between 2 modes: active mode (intervention condition), where it provided alerts for detected collision threats via 2 vibrotactile wristbands, and silent mode (control condition), where the device still detected collisions but did not provide any warnings to the user. Scene videos along with the collision warning information were recorded by the device. Potential collisions detected by the device were reviewed and scored, including contacts with the hazards, by 2 independent reviewers. Participants and reviewers were masked to the device operation mode. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rate of contacts per 100 hazards per hour, compared between the 2 device modes within each participant. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was used.

resultsOf the 31 included participants, 18 (58%) were male, and the median (range) age was 61 (25-73) years. A total of 19 participants (61%) had a visual acuity (VA) of light perception or worse, and 28 (90%) reported a long cane as their habitual mobility aid. The median (interquartile range) number of contacts was lower in the active mode compared with silent mode (9.3 [6.6-14.9] vs 13.8 [6.9-24.3]; difference, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.5-10.7; P < .001). Controlling for demographic characteristics, presence of VA better than light perception, and fall history, the rate of contacts significantly reduced in the active mode compared with the silent mode (β = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study involving 31 visually impaired participants, the collision warnings were associated with a reduced rate of contacts with obstacles in daily mobility, indicating the potential of the device to augment habitual mobility aids.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03057496.

Indexed as

Persons with Visual DisabilitiesWearable Electronic DevicesAnimalsBlindnessDogsFemaleHumansMaleVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID34292298
PMCPMC8299358
OpenAlexW3185244679

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.