Cochrane · systematic review · CD003303
Reading aids for adults with low vision
Virgili, G, Acosta, R, Bentley, SA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
42
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
23
Included studies
NR
No studies 23 · 54.8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 11 · 26.2%Moderate 8 · 19%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyStand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) versus optical device for adults with low vision
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (words per minute) Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reading duration (minutes) Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Reading acuity Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease and frequency of use Task difficulty score (0 = very easy to use 5 = extremely difficult) Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse outcomes Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device versus optical device for adults with low vision
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (words per minute) Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Reading duration (minutes) Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Reading acuity Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease and frequency of use Task difficulty score (0=very easy to use 5=extremely difficult) Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse outcomes Hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device versus optical device for adult with low vision
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (words per minute) using the IReST test Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 100 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Reading duration Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading acuity Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease and frequency of use Frequency of use (0 = never to 4 = several times a day) Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life estimating perceived difficulty using the NV‐VFQ‐15 questionnaire Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 100 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse outcomes Hand‐held (not mouse‐based) electronic device plus optical device vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation versus visual rehabilitation alone
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (maximum reading speed words per minute) Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Reading duration Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading acuity Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease and frequency of use Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse outcomes Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) plus visual rehabilitation vs visual rehabilitation alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) versus head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) for adults with low vision
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (words per minute) MNREAD Charts Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reading duration Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading acuity (logMAR) MNREAD charts. Higher score is worse acuity. Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Ease and frequency of use Task difficulty score (0 = very easy to use 5 = extremely difficult) Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse outcomes Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) versus hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) for adults with low vision
Population: adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (maximum reading speed words per minute) MNREAD charts Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 92 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reading duration (minutes) MNREAD charts Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Reading acuity Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease and frequency of use Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse outcomes Stand‐mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles for adults with low vision
Population: adults with low vision (people with AMD)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading speed (words per minute) Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Reading duration Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading acuity in logMAR Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Ease and frequency of use Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (NEI‐VFQ score) Scale from: 0‐100. Higher scores are better Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 153 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse outcomes Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Electronic device (various types of CCTV) versus optical device for adults with low vision
Population: Adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome: reading speed in words per minute (wpm) Comparison subgroups Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stand‐mounted CCTV versus best prescribed optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Stand‐mounted CCTV versus participant's optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Mouse‐based device (27'' TV monitor) versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Mouse‐based device (14'' monitor) versus participant's optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Flipperport head‐mounted CCTV (table stand camera) versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Jordy head‐mounted CCTV versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Maxport head‐mounted CCTV versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
NuVision head‐mounted CCTV versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Outcome: Reading duration (minutes) Comparison: stand CCTV versus optical device Electronic device (various types of CCTV) vs optical device | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) versus head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) for adults with low vision
Population: Adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reading Speed (words per minute MNREAD Charts Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Reading acuity (logMAR) MNREAD charts Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) vs head‐mounted electronic device (HMD) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) versus hand‐held, mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) for adults with low vision
Population: Adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum Reading Speed (words per minute) MNREAD charts Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held, mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 92 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Reading duration (minutes) MNREAD charts Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) vs hand‐held, mouse‐based electronic device (HHD) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Diffractive spectacle‐mounted magnifiers compared to control for adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diffractive versus refractive‐aspheric spectacle magnifier Diffractive spectacle‐mounted magnifiers vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 15 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Diffractive versus aplanatic spectacle magnifier Diffractive spectacle‐mounted magnifiers vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 15 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Overlay coloured filters versus clear filter for adults with low vision
Population: Adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome: reading speed (words per minute) Filter colour Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rose filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Pink filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Yellow filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Orange filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Mint filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Lime filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Gray filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Blue filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Aqua filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Purple filter Overlay coloured filters vs clear filter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 13 participants | Low |
Prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles for adults with low vision
Population: Adults with low vision
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Custom prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Standard prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles Prism spectacles vs conventional spectacles | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 155 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |