SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation on visual function and quality of life in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation on visual outcomes and quality of life in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Data sources: Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched from inception to May 2025. Searches were restricted to English-language publications. Review methods: Titles and abstracts were screened in Covidence, with data extraction performed independently by two reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for quasi-experimental and cross-sectional designs. Due to heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively following the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) framework. Results: From 48,601 records, only three studies met the inclusion criteria, underscoring a critical evidence gap. All reported improvements in visual outcomes with optical devices included enhanced distance and near acuity, faster reading speeds, and fewer reading errors. One study documented significant quality-of-life gains, particularly in social functioning, with an improvement of 76.6% on the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25). Another study highlighted that many students previously enrolled in schools for the blind retained functional vision following intervention, reflecting both the efficacy of rehabilitation and the unmet need for accessible services. Conclusion: The available evidence suggests low vision rehabilitation with optical devices may improve visual function and social participation-related quality of life in SSA. Despite the scarcity of studies and limited evidence base, these preliminary findings highlight the potential value of rehabilitation services in advancing education, independence, and psychosocial well-being in the region. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024496027.
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.