SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025
Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trans-Synaptic Retrograde Retinal Degeneration After Post-Chiasmatic Stroke: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- The Hemianopia Reading Questionnaire (HRQ): Development and Psychometric Qualities in a Large Community Sample.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.