Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38046087›Full record

ArticleClinical optometry2023

At-Home Trial of Four Different Head-Mounted Displays in Visual Rehabilitation of People with Stargardt Disease.

Diana Chabané Schmidt, Christine Dahlgren Bohnsack Kjølholm, Joaquim Torner Jordana, Vibeke Spange, Pernille Duelund Højstrup, Bo Schack Larsen, Line Kessel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical optometry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 'Such a lot of bother': Qualitative results of a home trial of a wearable electronic vision enhancement system for people with age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Diana Chabané SchmidtDepartment of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9887-6331
Christine Dahlgren Bohnsack KjølholmDepartment of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.
Joaquim Torner JordanaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3092-0057
Vibeke SpangeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.
Pernille Duelund HøjstrupInstitute for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Hellerup, Denmark.
Bo Schack LarsenInstitute for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Hellerup, Denmark.
Line KesselDepartment of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9375-1510

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the potential of different head-mounted displays in the rehabilitation of individuals with visual impairment. Methods: This prospective explorative study conducted between September 2019 and August 2020 included participants with Stargardt disease with moderate to severe visual impairment and a relatively preserved peripheral visual field. AceSight, eSight 3, IrisVision Live, and Jordy were tested. After instruction and training, participants chose two head-mounted displays for home use for two weeks per device. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used for evaluation. Results: Twelve participants (aged 16-53 years) tested all head-mounted displays in the clinic. Distance visual acuity and reading distance improved with all head-mounted displays and eSight and Irisvision improved near visual acuity. Six participants decided not to test the head-mounted display at home due to lack of time or energy, dizziness and discomfort, double vision and peripheral visual field limitation, or aesthetics. After home use, the participants reported improved visual function at a distance with IrisVision, AceSight, and e-Sight, whereas only AceSight improved vision during near tasks. IrisVision and eSight improved reading ability, and none of the devices improved vision during tasks involving computers. Five participants used the devices sparingly, and five avoided public use owing to aesthetics. Conclusion: We found an improvement in distance visual acuity and increased reading distance for all tested head-mounted displays. Additionally, IrisVision and eSight improved visual function at near and eSight also improved contrast vision at distance. Despite the possibility of improving vision, social stigma and device aesthetics kept the participants from using head-mounted displays in public and limited their use at home.

Indexed as

electronic glasseshead-mounted displayStargardt diseasevisual aidvisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID38046087
PMCPMC10693250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.