ArticleSaudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss.
Article in Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of visual function analysis of people with low vision using three different models of augmented reality devices.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to estimate the profile of patients visiting low vision care clinic at a tertiary eye care center in India and to analyze the preference of low vision devices (LVD).
methodsA retrospective review was done for 450 patients with low vision who were referred to the LVC clinic from January 2019 to December 2019. The participants were categorized into two groups as central field loss (CFL) and peripheral field loss (PFL). Demographic profile details and low vision device preference were documented.
resultsOut of 450 patients, 242 (53.8%) were diagnosed to have CFL and 208 (46.2%) had PFL. The median age of the overall patients was 34.5 years. Overall, 323 (71.8%) were men and 127 (28.2%) were women. Cone dystrophy (21.1%) was the major cause of low vision among atrophic changes (54.1%) in CFL, and retinitis pigmentosa (81.2%) was the majority in retina related changes (81.7%) in PFL. Overall, 71.3% of the low vision patients preferred LVD. CFL group (76%) preferred LVD more than PFL group (65.9%). Almost 34% of the patients in both CFL and PFL group have preferred half eyes and Ashperics, followed by 32.5% in CFL and 28.1% in PFL preferred dome magnifiers. Statistically significant improvement in distance and near vision with the help of LVD was noted.
conclusionThe use of LVD can help patients with low vision in restoring useful vision, where medical and surgical treatment have no or a limited role.
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.