Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control: Visual field
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Compensative interventions changes visual field (Functional field score and relative change in visual… compared with control (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control Visual field (Functional field score and relative change in visual field score, combined) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Compensative interventions changes visual field (Functional field score and relative change in visual… compared with control (very low certainty). Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 95 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.