ReviewCureus2026
Global Patterns of Visual Disability and Low Vision Aid Prescription: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual disability remains a major global public health challenge, particularly among individuals with irreversible ocular diseases where medical or surgical treatment cannot restore functional vision. Low-vision rehabilitation (LVR), including the prescription of low-vision aids (LVAs), plays a critical role in optimizing residual vision and improving quality of life; however, patterns of visual disability and LVA utilization vary widely across populations and healthcare settings. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines to evaluate patterns of visual disability and the prescription, utilisation, and functional outcomes of low-vision aids across diverse patient populations. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, along with Google Scholar and citation tracking, were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Observational studies, randomized or crossover trials, service audits, and rehabilitation reports assessing low-vision rehabilitation or assistive devices were included. Of 975 records identified, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Retinal diseases such as age-related macular degeneration, diabetic maculopathy, and inherited retinal dystrophies were the predominant causes of visual disability in adults, whereas congenital and developmental conditions were more common in pediatric populations. Optical LVAs, particularly high-add spectacles and magnifiers, were the most frequently prescribed devices, while electronic and wearable aids demonstrated superior task-specific performance but lower real-world uptake due to cost and usability barriers. Telerehabilitation showed functional outcomes comparable to in-clinic training. Overall, low-vision aids significantly improve functional outcomes across a wide spectrum of visual disabilities, and a multimodal, patient-centered rehabilitation model integrating optical, electronic, and tele-rehabilitation approaches is essential to enhance accessibility, service reach, and effectiveness.
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.