ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
The effects of an electronic head-mounted display in vision rehabilitation for patients with tunnel vision.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Technology-Assisted Visual Rehabilitation Therapies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an Augmented-Reality Head-Mounted Display Among Patients With Glaucomatous Tunnel Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Harnessing Visual Neuroplasticity Through Auditory Biofeedback-Functional and Electrophysiological Gains Across Retinal, Optic-Nerve, and Cortical Visual Impairment: A Prospective Pilot Study.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of a new head-mounted electronic visual aid-Acesight on improving visual function and daily activities in patients with tunnel vision.
methods57 patients with tunnel vision participated in this study. The visual field (VF), visual acuity (VA), search ability, time of finding people from the side (TFPS), walking ability, and the subjective feelings of patients with and without Acesight were measured.
results15 (36%) patients thought Acesight was "helpful", 16 (28%) thought it was "a little help", and 26 (46%) believed that it was "not helpful." The proportion of people aged < 60 years found Acesight helpful was higher. When wearing Acesight, the average horizontal VF diameter (°) (35.54[8.72]) and vertical VF diameter (°) (26.63[5.38]) were larger than those without visual aids (20.61[9.22], 18.19[6.67]) (P all < 0.001). The average TFPS before and while wearing the Acesight was 1.77s(0.32) and 1.19s(0.29), respectively (t = 14.28, P < 0.001). The average search times, number of collisions, walking speeds when wearing the Acesight were not statistically different from those without visual aids (P all > 0.05).
conclusionMore than half of patients with tunnel vision found the Acesight helpful, and a higher proportion of those aged < 60 years old found it helpful. Acesight can expand the horizontal and vertical VF of patients with tunnel vision and can enable patients to detect objects coming from the side earlier.
trial registrationChiCTR2000028859; Date of registration: 2020/1/5; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=47129.
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.