Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · Stroke

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control

Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control

Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects

Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions showed no clear difference in reading ability compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
MD 2.8
1 study · 45 participants
Low

Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control

Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control

Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects

Summary of findings: Compensative interventions showed no clear difference in reading ability (Reading speed; various tests) After intervention compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
SMD 0.26
4 studies · 162 participants
Low