Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38639880›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025

Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions.

S Tol, G A de Haan, E M J L Postuma, J L Jansen, J Heutink

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S TolClinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands. s.tol@rug.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4734-3003
G A de HaanClinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3055-3920
E M J L PostumaClinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2110-9809
J L JansenClinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8741-8316
J HeutinkClinical and Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4811-968X
University of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading difficulties are amongst the most commonly reported problems in individuals with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). To be able to provide guidance for healthcare professionals considering offering reading training, researchers in this field and interested individuals with HVFDs, this systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of the contextual and intervention characteristics of all published HVFD interventions and (2) generate insights into the different reading outcome measures that these studies adopted. A search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science was conducted up to February 2, 2023. All intervention studies for HVFD in which reading was measured were included. Data was collected about the intervention type, session duration, number of sessions, the intensity, duration, circumstance of the interventions, country in which the intervention was studied and reading measures. Sixty records are included, describing 70 interventions in total of which 21 are specifically reading interventions. Overall, adjusted saccadic behaviour interventions occur most in the literature. A wide range within all intervention characteristics was observed. Forty-nine records reported task-performance reading measures, and 33 records reported self-reported reading measures. The majority of task-performance measures are based on self-developed paragraph reading tasks with a time-based outcome measure (e.g. words per minute). Future research could benefit from making use of validated reading tests, approaching the measurement of reading mixed-methods and providing participants the possibility to supply outcomes relevant to them.

Indexed as

DyslexiaHemianopsiaReadingHumansVisual FieldsHemianopiaHomonymous visual field defectsInterventionReading

Identifiers

PMID38639880
PMCPMC12328476
OpenAlexW4394952198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.