This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (5 OCT 2011)

Intervention Protocol

Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke

  1. Alex Pollock1,*,
  2. Christine Hazelton1,
  3. Clair A Henderson2,
  4. Jayne Angilley3,
  5. Baljean Dhillon4,
  6. Peter Langhorne5,
  7. Katrina Livingstone6,
  8. Frank A Munro7,
  9. Heather Orr8,
  10. Fiona J Rowe9,
  11. Uma Shahani10

Editorial Group: Cochrane Stroke Group

Published Online: 17 MAR 2010

Assessed as up-to-date: 24 SEP 2009

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008388


How to Cite

Pollock A, Hazelton C, Henderson CA, Angilley J, Dhillon B, Langhorne P, Livingstone K, Munro FA, Orr H, Rowe FJ, Shahani U. Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD008388. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008388.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Glasgow Caledonian University, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow, UK

  2. 2

    RNIB Scotland, Parliamentary, Policy, Press and Research, Edinburgh, UK

  3. 3

    Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Primary Care Trust, Newquay, UK

  4. 4

    NHS Lothian, Department of Ophthalmology, Clinical and Surgical Sciences, Edinburgh, UK

  5. 5

    University of Glasgow, Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine, Glasgow, UK

  6. 6

    NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Community Stroke Team - South Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

  7. 7

    Frank Munro Optometrists, S/E Community Optometrist, Glasgow, UK

  8. 8

    NHS Tayside, Stroke Rehabilitation Unit, Brechin, Angus, UK

  9. 9

    University of Liverpool, Directorate of Orthoptics and Vision Science, Liverpool, UK

  10. 10

    Glasgow Caledonian University, Department of Visual Sciences, Glasgow, UK

*Alex Pollock, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Buchanan House, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. alex.pollock@gcal.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 17 MAR 2010

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (05 OCT 2011)

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

Research question

Do interventions for visual field defects improve functional ability following stroke? Are interventions for visual field defects more effective at improving functional ability in people with visual field defect only than in those with co-existing visual field defect and visual perceptual problems?

Specific objectives

  1. To determine if (a) in all participants with visual field defects following stroke, (b) in those with visual field defects and no visual perceptual problems, and (c) in those with co-existing visual field defects and visual perceptual problems:
    • restitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
    • compensative interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
    • substitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
    • assessment/screening interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living.
  2. To determine if (a) in all participants with visual field defects following stroke, (b) in those with visual field defects and no visual perceptual problems, and (c) in those with co-existing visual field defects and visual perceptual problems:
    • restitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
    • compensatory interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
    • substitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
    • assessment/screening interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at secondary outcomes.
  3. To explore the relationship between participant characteristics and the effect of interventions aimed at improving functional abilities in activities of daily living using subgroup analysis.
  4. To make specific recommendations for future research into the effectiveness of interventions for visual field defects, based on a knowledge of the existing evidence base.

  • restitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
  • compensative interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
  • substitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living;
  • assessment/screening interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving functional ability in activities of daily living.

  • restitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
  • compensatory interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
  • substitutive interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at improving secondary outcomes;
  • assessment/screening interventions are more effective than control, placebo or no intervention at secondary outcomes.