ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Interventions for Visual Field Loss After Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acquired brain injury (ABI) frequently results in visual field loss, a disabling condition that negatively affects visual exploration, reading, mobility, activities of daily living, and quality of life. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for visual field loss following ABI. The review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420261359820). Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest) were searched for studies published between January 2015 and May 2026. Twenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria, including randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and case series. Interventions were classified as compensatory, substitutive, or restorative, the latter including neuromodulation techniques. Compensatory interventions provided the most consistent evidence of benefit, improving visual exploration, reading, mobility, activities of daily living, and vision-related quality of life. Restorative interventions produced more variable findings, with some studies reporting improvements in visual field sensitivity and stimulus detection, whereas evidence for substitutive approaches was limited because few eligible studies were identified. Overall, functional improvements were reported more consistently than objective visual field expansion. Current evidence supports visual rehabilitation as an important component of ABI management, although further high-quality research using standardised protocols and outcome measures is needed to establish the most effective interventions for different patient populations.
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.