Trial reportPloS one2026
Effect of vision training on visual function in older adults: A pilot randomized trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Falls among older adults are a major public health concern; however, scientific evidence for interventions that specifically target visual function remains limited. Therefore, this exploratory pilot randomized trial evaluated changes in multiple visual-function outcomes associated with an oculomotor-focused vision training (VT) program in community-dwelling older adults. Thirty community-dwelling older adults (mean age, 73.7 ± 4.8 years) were randomly assigned to a lower-limb strength training group (SLR) or a group with SLR and an additional VT component (SLR + VT). Over 8 weeks, six visual-function components were assessed using the V-training system (eye-hand coordination, visual memory, spatial cognition, peripheral perception, central/peripheral perception, and eye movement). Physical function was assessed using the Timed Up and Go test. For each outcome, ANCOVA was performed with the post-intervention value as the dependent variable, group as the fixed factor, and the corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Baseline-adjusted analyses showed no clear between-group differences in post-intervention visual-function or physical-function outcomes. Several point estimates favored the VT group for outcomes aligned with repeated eye-movement practice, but confidence intervals were wide. In this pilot trial, clear baseline-adjusted differences between the two SLR-based programs, with or without an additional VT component, were not confirmed. Given the small sample size, findings are hypothesis-generating and will inform the design of adequately powered trials with time- and attention-matched control conditions and clinically meaningful endpoints.
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.