Cochrane · systematic review · CD008388
Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke
Pollock, A, Hazelton, C, Rowe, FJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 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
30
current version
GRADE rated
17
No studies
13
Included studies
NR
No studies 13 · 43.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 10 · 33.3%Low 7 · 23.3%Moderate 0 · 0%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
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions versus control
Population: stroke survivors with visual field defects
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional ability in activities of daily living Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Visual field (TAP border position in degrees of visual angle from zero vertical meridian) After intervention Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | MD 1.02 | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Extended activities of daily living Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading ability Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Falls Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (improved or not improved ‐ derived from percentage of those who reported subjective improvements of vision) Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | OR 13 [2.07, 81.48] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Scanning ‐ cancellation Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings: Compensative interventions versus control
Population: stroke survivors with visual field defects
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional ability in activities of daily living Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Visual field (Functional field score and relative change in visual field score, combined) After intervention Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 95 participants | Very low |
Extended activities of daily living (Mobility questionnaire and change in Nottingham EADL, combined) After intervention Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | SMD 0.49 | 2 studies · 97 participants | Very low |
Reading ability (Reading speed; various tests) After intervention Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | SMD 0.26 | 4 studies · 162 participants | Low |
Falls Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI ‐ VFQ‐25) total score) After intervention Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | MD 9.36 [3.1, 15.62] | 2 studies · 96 participants | Low |
Scanning ‐ cancellation (cancellation tests ‐ time to complete) After intervention Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 97 participants | Low |
Adverse events (number of participants with reported events during intervention period) Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control | OR 5.18 | 2 studies · 108 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions versus control
Population: stroke survivors with visual field defects
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional ability in activities of daily living (Barthel Index) After 4 weeks of treatment Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low |
Visual field (change in visual field area & change in error scores, from baseline) After intervention Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | SMD 0.12 [0.44, 1.8] | 2 studies · 85 participants | Very low |
Extended activities of daily living (Change in EADL from baseline; mobility improvement scores, in Logits) After intervention Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | SMD 0.2 | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low |
Reading ability Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | MD 2.8 | 1 study · 45 participants | Low |
Falls (number of falls) After intervention Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | OR 1.21 [0.26, 5.76] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low |
Quality of life (Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ‐25)) After intervention Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | MD 8.4 | 1 study · 43 participants | Low |
Scanning ‐ cancellation (line cancellation errors) After intervention Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | MD 9.8 [1.91, 17.69] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low |
Adverse events (number of participants with reported events during intervention period) Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control | OR 87.32 [4.87, 1564.66] | 1 study · 59 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions versus control
Population: stroke survivors with visual field defects
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional ability in activities of daily living (FIM) After intervention Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low |
Visual field Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Extended activities of daily living Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reading ability Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Falls Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Scanning ‐ cancellation Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |