ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
Efficacy of low-vision devices in elderly population with age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Patterns of Visual Disability and Low Vision Aid Prescription: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- A review of optical and digital aids for magnification techniques in low-vision rehabilitation.Journal of biological methods · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of blindness, residual damage to macular area in spite of treatment necessitates visual rehabilitation by means of low-vision aids (LVAs). Methods: Thirty patients suffering from different stages of AMD requiring LVAs were included in this prospective study. Patients with nonprogressive, adequately treated AMD were enrolled over a 12-month period, prescribed requisite LVAs and followed-up for a minimum 1-month period. Before and after provision of LVAs, near work efficiencies were evaluated by calculating reading speed as words per minute (wpm) under both photopic and mesopic light conditions, and impact of poor vision on activities of daily living (ADL) was quantified by modified standard questionnaire based on Nhung X et al. questionnaire. Results: Of the 30 patients mean studied with mean age of 68 ± 10 years, 20 patients (66.7%) had dry AMD in better eye and 10 (33.3%) had wet AMD. Post-LVA, near visual acuity improved significantly and all cases were able to read some letters on near vision chart with an average improvement of 2.4 ± 0.96 lines. The different LVAs prescribed were high plus reading spectacles (up to 10 D) in 23.3%, hand-held magnifiers in 53.3%, base in prisms in 10%, stand held magnifiers in 6.7%, and bar and dome magnifiers in 3.3%. Conclusion: LVAs are effective in visual rehabilitation in patients with AMD. Self-reported reduction in visual dependency and improvement in vision-related quality of life post use of aids corroborated perceived benefit.
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.