ReviewThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2024
The Assessment of Vision in Children with Severe Learning Difficulties: A Systematic Review.
Review in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Children with learning difficulties that require a vision assessment may not be able to perform standard clinical vision tests, for example, Forced Choice Preferential Looking (FCPL). There is a lack of standardisation on the procedure of vision assessment in this group of children. The aim of this literature review was to identify and evaluate methods of vision assessment when standard clinical vision tests are not possible in children with severe learning difficulties. Method: Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from inception to Nov 2022 for methods of vision assessment in children with learning difficulties. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. The McMaster University Critical review form for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies identified. Results: Five-hundred and seventy one papers were identified from databases and 16 were identified from searching reference lists and grey literature. Of the 587, five studies were relevant and fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three methods of vision assessment were identified: Visually Evoked Potentials (VEP), questionnaires, and the Bradford visual function box (BVFB). Discussion: The VEP method was validated and reliable, although it had a similar success rate to the standardised FCPL tests in children with learning difficulties. The BVFB was a standardised method for measurement of vision threshold in children that cannot successfully complete FCPL tests, however it has not been validated. Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather descriptive information on the child's functional vision, however no guidance on the interpretation of the information is available. The BVFB and questionnaires require further development and validation. All three methods (VEP, questionnaires, and BVFB) can be useful as part of the assessment of vision in a child with severe learning difficulties where standard clinical tests are not possible, when used in a standardised manner.
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.