Cochrane · systematic review · CD006543
Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
van Nispen, RMA, Virgili, G, Hoeben, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
18
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 5.6%Ungraded 2 · 11.1%Very low 9 · 50%Low 5 · 27.8%Moderate 1 · 5.6%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
Psychological therapies and/or group programmes compared to waiting list or no care for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Vision‐related quality of life Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 285 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 285 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Methods of enhancing vision compared to waiting list or no care for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Methods of enhancing vision vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Vision‐related quality of life Methods of enhancing vision vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 262 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Methods of enhancing vision vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 262 participants | Ungraded |
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to waiting list or no care for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 183 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Vision‐related quality of life Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 193 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs waiting list or no care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 193 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Psychological therapies and/or group programmes compared to active control for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 600 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Vision‐related quality of life Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 1245 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Psychological therapies and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1453 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Methods of enhancing vision and/or group programmes compared to active control for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Methods of enhancing vision and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 443 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Vision‐related quality of life Methods of enhancing vision and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 660 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Methods of enhancing vision and/or group programmes vs active control | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 660 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to active control for better quality of life in visually impaired adults
Population: adults (>= 18 years) with an irreversible visual impairment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs active control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 375 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Vision‐related quality of life Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs active control | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 464 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs active control | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 464 participants | Ungraded |