Assistive technology for vision improvement interventions vs usual care or attention control: Health‐related quality of life ‐ all trials Higher scores indicate improved health‐related quality of life
Assistive technology for vision improvement interventions showed no clear difference in health‐related quality of life 1 trial of single‐lens glasses… compared with usual care or attention control (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Assistive technology for vision improvement interventions vs usual care or attention control Health‐related quality of life 1 trial of single‐lens glasses compared with usual glasses (multifocals) reported this outcome using the SF‐12 (range 0 to 100). Higher scores indicate better quality of life. · older people living in the community Assistive technology for vision improvement interventions showed no clear difference in health‐related quality of life 1 trial of single‐lens glasses… compared with usual care or attention control (low certainty). Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 0.4 | 1 study · 597 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community 2023 · 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.