SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2024
Which rehabilitation initiatives can effectively improve participation in an educational setting for visually impaired and blind adolescents? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisually impaired and blind adolescents fare poorly in educational attainment compared to adolescents without vision impairment. Rehabilitation holds the potential to compensate for the hindrances that the impairment causes. Many rehabilitation initiatives exist. However, the efficacy of these initiatives remains uncertain. This systematic review assessed which rehabilitation initiatives improve participation in an educational setting for visually impaired and blind adolescents.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, and Cochrane library databases were searched. Only primary studies as randomized controlled trial (parallel group or crossover), cohort studies, case-control studies, qualitative studies, and case-studies were included. Data on the study characteristics, visual impairment, type of intervention, research question, main findings, and implications for practice were extracted from the papers. Critical appraisal was performed using the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies both from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The data extraction and the critical appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers.
resultsA total of 10 studies with visually impaired and blind adolescents were considered eligible, from an original search result of 3210 studies. In the thematic analysis we identified a heightened focus on different means for studying by making the curriculum content more accessible by applying different audio, tactile, or electronic devices (n = 8). A minor focus in the identified studies (n = 2) was placed on the impact of support from the environment on the development of literacy, for example the support from teachers or parents. Outcome parameters representing more diverse rehabilitation initiatives have not been adequately investigated in the literature. The scientific evidence that we identified was based on few publications with contradictory results and some studies were of questionable quality, limiting the applicability of their findings.
conclusionsOverall, the review identified a gap in the evidence regarding rehabilitation initiatives for visually impaired and blind adolescents that enables participation in an educational setting. The overall quality assessment of the 10 studies identified several risks of bias, for which reason the current scientific evidence does not qualify as a basis for decision making, leaving the adolescents in a heightened risk to fall even further behind in the educational system. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish high-quality evidence.
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.