Get access

Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke

  • Protocol
  • Intervention

Authors


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.

Ancillary