Abstract
Purpose::
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of reading aids for adults with low vision.
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. We handsearched the British Journal of Visual Impairment from 1983 to 1999 and the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness from 1976 to 1991.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.
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 carryover 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.
Conclusions::
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 carryover 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.