This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (23 OCT 2013)

Intervention Review

Reading aids for adults with low vision

  1. Gianni Virgili1,*,
  2. Ruthy Acosta2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group

Published Online: 18 OCT 2006

Assessed as up-to-date: 9 JUL 2006

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub2


How to Cite

Virgili G, Acosta R. Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003303. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Florence, Department of Ophthalmology, Florence, Italy

  2. 2

    Equip de Recerca en Medicina i Terapia Fetal, Médica Epidemiologa-Coordinadora de proyectos, Barcelona, Spain

*Gianni Virgili, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florence, Via le Morgagni 85, Florence, 50134, Italy. gianni.virgili@unifi.it.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 18 OCT 2006

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (23 OCT 2013)

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. 摘要

Background

The purpose of low vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, reading being one of the most important. This is achieved by providing appropriate optical devices and special training in the use of residual vision and low vision aids, which range from simple optical magnifiers to high power video magnifiers.

Objectives

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of reading aids for adults with low vision.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SIGLE, LILACS, IndMed to July 2006 and the reference lists of relevant articles. We used the Science Citation Index to find articles that cited the included studies and contacted investigators and manufacturers of low vision aids. We handsearched the British Journal of Visual Impairment from 1983 to 1999 and the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness from 1976 to 1991.

Selection criteria

This review included randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which any device or aid used for reading had been compared to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators.

Data collection and analysis

Each author independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

Main results

Eight small studies with a cross-over design (221 people overall) and one three parallel-arm study (243 participants) were included in the review.

The cross-over studies evaluated various types of aids. The quality of the studies was unclear in most cases, especially concerning carry-over or period effects. In one study on 20 participants head-mounted electronic devices (four types) were worse than optical devices. We could not find any differences in comparisons among electronic devices when pooling 23 participants of two small studies. One study on 10 people found that overlay coloured filters were no better than a clear filter.

A parallel-arm study including 243 patients with age-related macular degeneration found that custom or standard prism spectacles are not different from conventional near spectacles, but the estimated difference was not precise.

Authors' conclusions

Further research is needed on the comparison of different types of low vision aids. It will be also necessary to delineate patient's characteristics that predict performance with costly electronic devices as well as their sustained use in the long term compared to simpler and cheaper optical devices.

 

Plain language summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. 摘要

Magnifying reading aids for adults with low vision

The number of people with low vision is increasing with aging of the population. Magnifying optical and electronic aids are commonly prescribed to help people maintain the ability to read when they develop visual loss but still have some residual vision. Results from small studies of unclear quality and weak design comparing various types of electronic or optical devices were inconclusive, although one study suggested that head-mounted electronic devices were worse than optical aids. Another study suggested that prism spectacles were no more effective than conventional spectacles for people with age-related macular degeneration.

 

摘要

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary
  4. 摘要

背景

低視能成人使用的閱讀輔助器

低視能復健的目的是使民眾可以恢復或持續進行每天的日常工作,閱讀是其中最重要的。這可以經由提供適當的光學設備及使用殘餘視力的特殊訓練或低視能輔助器而達成,其範圍從簡單的視力放大鏡到高功率的視頻放大鏡。

目標

這篇回顧的目的是評估閱讀輔助器對於低視能成人的效果。

搜尋策略

我們檢索考科藍圖書館的the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (其包含the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register),MEDLINE,EMBASE,SIGLE,LILACS,IndMed至2006年7月為止以及相關文章的參考文獻。我們使用科學索引以尋找納入研究中引用的文章,並連絡研究者及低視能輔助器的製造商。我們人工檢索1983至1999年的the British Journal of Visual Impairment及1976至1991年的the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness。

選擇標準

這篇回顧納入關於用作閱讀的任何工具或輔助器相較於另一種工具或輔助器的隨機及類隨機試驗,研究對象為研究人員所定義之低視能的16歲以上人口。

資料收集與分析

每位作者分別評估試驗品質並摘錄資料。

主要結論

這篇回顧納入八篇小型的交叉設計(共221人)及三篇平行對照研究(243名受試者)。交叉研究評估各種類型的輔助器。在大多數的研究中其研究品質不明確,尤其是殘餘或時間效應。一篇研究中20名受試者頭戴電子設備(4種類型)的結果皆不如光學設備。加總兩篇小型研究中23名受試者的結果後,我們沒有發現電子設備間的差異。一篇10人的研究發現覆蓋有色的濾片並不會比透明的濾片好。一篇包括243名老年性黃斑退化患者的平行對照研究發現,訂做的或標準的折射眼鏡皆與傳統的近視眼鏡沒有差別,但所估計的差異值並不精確。

作者結論

需要進一步的研究來比較不同類型的低視能輔助器。另外也需要描述病患的特性以預期相較於簡單的或便宜的光學設備,昂貴電子設備的性能,以及持續使用的期限。

翻譯人

本摘要由高雄榮民總醫院金沁琳翻譯。

此翻譯計畫由臺灣國家衛生研究院(National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan)統籌。

總結

低視能成人使用的放大鏡閱讀輔助器。低視能人數隨著老化人口而增加。當民眾發生視力喪失但仍有殘餘視力時,通常使用放大鏡光學與電子輔助器來幫助其維持閱讀能力。比較各種電子或光學設備之研究品質不明確且研究設計不佳的小型研究的結果沒有定論,雖然一篇研究認為頭戴式電子設備比光學輔助器更糟。其他的研究認為折射眼鏡對於老年性黃斑部退化者的效果並未比傳統的眼鏡更有效。