Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Apr 17;4(4):CD003303.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub4.

Reading aids for adults with low vision

Gianni Virgili  1 , Ruthy Acosta, Sharon A Bentley, Giovanni Giacomelli, Claire Allcock, Jennifer R Evans
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Reading aids for adults with low vision

Gianni Virgili et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The purpose of low-vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, with 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-magnification video magnifiers.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different visual 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 Trials Register) (2017, Issue 12); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; BIREME LILACS, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 17 January 2018.

Selection criteria: This review includes randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared any device or aid used for reading to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators. We did not compare low-vision aids with no low-vision aid since it is obviously not possible to measure reading speed, our primary outcome, in people that cannot read ordinary print. We considered reading aids that maximise the person's visual reading capacity, for example by increasing image magnification (optical and electronic magnifiers), augmenting text contrast (coloured filters) or trying to optimise the viewing angle or gaze position (such as prisms). We have not included studies investigating reading aids that allow reading through hearing, such as talking books or screen readers, or through touch, such as Braille-based devices and we did not consider rehabilitation strategies or complex low-vision interventions.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome of the review was reading speed in words per minute. Secondary outcomes included reading duration and acuity, ease and frequency of use, quality of life and adverse outcomes. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

Main results: We included 11 small studies with a cross-over design (435 people overall), one study with two parallel arms (37 participants) and one study with three parallel arms (243 participants). These studies took place in the USA (7 studies), the UK (5 studies) and Canada (1 study). Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was the most frequent cause of low vision, with 10 studies reporting 50% or more participants with the condition. Participants were aged 9 to 97 years in these studies, but most were older (the median average age across studies was 71 years). None of the studies were masked; otherwise we largely judged the studies to be at low risk of bias. All studies reported the primary outcome: results for reading speed. None of the studies measured or reported adverse outcomes.Reading speed may be higher with stand-mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) than with optical devices (stand or hand magnifiers) (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 92 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that reading duration was longer with the electronic devices and that they were easier to use. Similar results were seen for electronic devices with the camera mounted in a 'mouse'. Mixed results were seen for head-mounted devices with one study of 70 participants finding a mouse-based head-mounted device to be better than an optical device and another study of 20 participants finding optical devices better (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three studies (93 participants) suggested no important differences in reading speed, acuity or ease of use between stand-mounted and head-mounted electronic devices. Similarly, low-certainty evidence from one study of 100 participants suggested no important differences between a 9.7'' tablet computer and stand-mounted CCTV in reading speed, with imprecise estimates (other outcomes not reported).Low-certainty evidence showed little difference in reading speed in one study with 100 participants that added electronic portable devices to preferred optical devices. One parallel-arm study in 37 participants found low-certainty evidence of higher reading speed at one month if participants received a CCTV at the initial rehabilitation consultation instead of a standard low-vision aids prescription alone.A parallel-arm study including 243 participants with AMD found no important differences in reading speed, reading acuity and quality of life between prism spectacles and conventional spectacles. One study in 10 people with AMD found that reading speed with several overlay coloured filters was no better and possibly worse than with a clear filter (low-certainty evidence, other outcomes not reported).

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of a specific type of electronic or optical device for the most common profiles of low-vision aid users. However, there is some evidence that stand-mounted electronic devices may improve reading speeds compared with optical devices. There is less evidence to support the use of head-mounted or portable electronic devices; however, the technology of electronic devices may have improved since the studies included in this review took place, and modern portable electronic devices have desirable properties such as flexible use of magnification. There is no good evidence to support the use of filters or prism spectacles. Future research should focus on assessing sustained long-term use of each device and the effect of different training programmes on its use, combined with investigation of which patient characteristics predict performance with different devices, including some of the more costly electronic devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Gianni Virgili shares the patent on the MNREAD Italian charts with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Electronic device (various types of CCTV) versus optical device, outcome: 1.1 Reading speed (words per minute).
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) versus head‐mounted electronic device (HMD), outcome: 2.1 Reading speed (words per minute).
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Stand‐based closed‐circuit television (CCTV) versus hand‐held, mouse‐based electronic device (HHD), outcome: 3.1 Reading speed (words per minute).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 6 Diffractive spectacle mounted magnifiers versus control, outcome: 6.1 MNREAD maximum reading speed (words/minute).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Culham 2004 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Culham LE, Chabra A, Rubin GS. Clinical performance of electronic, head‐mounted, low‐vision devices. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2004;24(4):281‐90. - PubMed
Eperjesi 2004 {published data only}
    1. Eperjesi F, Fowler CW, Evans BJ. The effects of coloured light filter overlays on reading rates in age‐related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2004;82(6):695‐700. - PubMed
Goodrich 2001 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Goodrich GL, Kirby J. A comparison of low vision reading performance with hand‐held and stand‐mounted CCTV. Optometry and Vision Science 2000;77(12):125.
    1. Goodrich GL, Kirby J. A comparison of patient reading performance and preference: optical devices, handheld CCTV (Innoventions Magni‐Cam), or stand‐mounted CCTV (Optelec Clearview or TSI Genie). Optometry 2001;72(8):519‐28. - PubMed
Jackson 2017 {published data only}
    1. Jackson ML, Schoessow KA, Selivanova A, Wallis J. Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well‐being from a prospective, randomized study. Digital Journal of Ophthalmology 2017;23(1):1‐10. - PMC - PubMed
Kleweno 2001 {published data only}
    1. Kleweno CP, Seibel EJ, Viirre ES, Kelly JP, Furness TA 3rd. The virtual retinal display as a low‐vision computer interface: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2001;38(4):431‐42. - PubMed
Morrice 2017 {published data only}
    1. Morrice E, Johnson AP, Marinier JA, Wittich W. Assessment of the Apple iPad as a low‐vision reading aid. Eye 2017;31(6):865‐71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riley AK, Johnson AP. Apple iPad and CCTV reading performance comparison in persons with low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2016;57(12):5169.
Ortiz 1999 {published data only}
    1. Ortiz A, Chung ST, Legge GE, Jobling JT. Reading with a head‐mounted video magnifier. Optometry and Vision Science 1999;76(11):755‐63. - PubMed
Peterson 2003 {published data only}
    1. Peterson RC, Wolffsohn JS, Rubinstein M, Lowe J. Benefits of electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) for the visually impaired. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;136(6):1129‐35. - PubMed
Smith 2005 {published data only}
    1. Smith HJ, Dickinson CM, Cacho I, Reeves BC, Harper RA. A randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of prism spectacles for patients with age‐related macular degeneration. Archives of Ophthalmology 2005;123(8):1042‐50. - PubMed
Spitzberg 1995 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Spitzberg LA, Goodrich GL. New ergonomic stand magnifiers. Journal of the American Optometric Association 1995;66(1):25‐30. - PubMed
Stelmack 1991 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Stelmack J, Reda D, Ahlers S, Bainbridge L, McCray J. Reading performance of geriatric patients post exudative maculopathy. Journal of the American Optometric Association 1991;62(1):53‐7. - PubMed
Taylor 2017 {published data only}
    1. Bray N, Brand A, Taylor J, Hoare Z, Dickinson C, Edwards RT. Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial. Acta Ophthalmologica 2017;95(5):415‐23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taylor JJ, Bambrick R, Brand A, Bray N, Dutton M, Harper RA, et al. Effectiveness of portable electronic and optical magnifiers for near vision activities in low vision: a randomised crossover trial. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2017;37(4):370‐84. - PubMed
Watson 2005 {published data only}
    1. Watson GR, Maino JM, l'Aune W. Comparison of low‐vision reading with spectacle mounted magnifiers. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2005;42(4):459‐70. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Alabdulkader 2012 {published data only}
    1. Alabdulkader B, Leat S. Do reading additions improve reading in pre‐presbyopes with low vision?. Optometry and Vision Science 2012;89(9):1327‐35. - PubMed
Bailie 2013 {published data only}
    1. Bailie M, Wolffsohn JS, Stevenson M, Jackson AJ. Functional and perceived benefits of wearing coloured filters by patients with age‐related macular degeneration. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2013;96(5):450‐4. - PubMed
Blaskey 1990 {published data only}
    1. Blaskey P, Scheiman M, Parisi M, Ciner EB, Gallaway M, Selznick R. The effectiveness of Irlen filters for improving reading performance: a pilot study. Journal of Learning Disability 1990;23(10):604‐12. - PubMed
Bonatti 2008 {published data only}
    1. Bonatti FA, Bonatti JA, Sampaio MW, Haddad MA, Souza PR, José NK. Evaluation of patients using an innovative low‐vision aid [Avaliacao de pacientes utilizando equipamento inovador de auxilio a visao subnormal]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2008;71(3):385‐8. - PubMed
Cheong 2005 {published data only}
    1. Cheong AM, Lovie‐Kitchin JE, Bowers AR, Brown B. Short‐term in‐office practice improves reading performance with stand magnifiers for people with AMD. Optometry and Vision Science 2005;82(2):114‐27. - PubMed
Cheong 2009 {published data only}
    1. Cheong AM, Bowers AR, Lovie‐Kitchin J. Does a line guide improve reading performance with stand magnifiers?. Optometry and Vision Science 2009;86(9):1078‐85. - PubMed
Cohen 1991 {published data only}
    1. Cohen JM, Waiss B. Reading speed through different equivalent power low vision devices with identical field of view. Optometry and Vision Science 1991;68(10):795‐7. - PubMed
Culham 2009 {published data only}
    1. Culham LE, Chabra A, Rubin GS. Users' subjective evaluation of electronic vision enhancement systems. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2009;29(2):138‐49. - PubMed
Goodrich 1977 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Goodrich GL, Mehr EB, Quillman RD, Shaw HK, Wiley JK. Training and practice effects in performance with low‐vision aids: a preliminary study. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 1977;54(5):312‐8. - PubMed
Goodrich 2004 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Goodrich GL, Kirby J, Wagstaff P, Oros T, McDevitt B. A comparative study of reading performance with a head‐mounted laser display and conventional low vision devices. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2004;98(3):148‐59.
Jacobs 1990 {published data only}
    1. Jacobs RJ. Screen color and reading performance on closed‐circuit television. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 1990;84(10):569‐72.
Kuyk 1990 {published data only}
    1. Kuyk T, James J. A pilot study of a telescopic low vision aid with a motorized focus. Journal of Vision Rehabilitation 1990;4:21‐9.
Lawton 1989 {published data only}
    1. Lawton TB. Improved reading performance using individualized compensation filters for observers with losses in central vision. Ophthalmology 1989;96(1):115‐26. - PubMed
LOVIT 2008 {published data only}
    1. Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Massof RW, et al. Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT). Archives of Ophthalmology 2008;126(5):608‐17. - PubMed
Margrain 2000 {published data only}
    1. Margrain TH. Helping blind and partially sighted people to read: the effectiveness of low vision aids. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;84(8):919‐21. - PMC - PubMed
Parodi 2004 {published data only}
    1. Parodi MB, Toto L, Mastropasqua L, Depollo M, Ravalico G. Prismatic correction in patients affected by age‐related macular degeneration. Clinical Rehabilitation 2004;18:828‐32. - PubMed
Rees 2006 {published data only}
    1. Rees G, Ferraro JG, Lamoureux E, Keeffe JE. Evaluation of low cost low vision devices. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2006; Vol. 47:ARVO Abstract 4403.
Reeves 2004 {published data only}
    1. Reeves BC, Harper RA, Russell WB. Enhanced low vision rehabilitation for people with age related macular degeneration: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;88(11):1443‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Rohrschneider 1998 {published data only}
    1. Rohrschneider K, Riede B, Blankenagel A. Image flicker frequency of television reading aids. Effect on reading comfort for visually handicapped patients [Bildwiederholfrequenz von Bildschirmlesegeraten. Einfluss auf die Lesefahigkeit von Sehbehinderten]. Ophthalmologe 1998;95(2):110‐3. - PubMed
Rosenberg 1989 {published data only}
    1. Rosenberg R, Faye E, Fischer M, Budick D. Role of prism relocation in improving visual performance of patients with macular dysfunction. Optometry and Vision Science 1989;66:747‐50. - PubMed
Rossi 1990 {published data only}
    1. Rossi PW, Kheyfets EJ, Reding MJ. Fresnel prisms improve visual perception in stroke patients with homonymous hemianopia or unilateral visual neglect. Neurology 1990;40(10):1597‐9. - PubMed
Scott 2002 {published data only}
    1. Scott IU, Feuer WJ, Jacko JA. Impact of graphical user interface screen features on computer task accuracy and speed in a cohort of patients with age‐related macular degeneration. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;134(6):857‐62. - PubMed
Wolffshon 2002 {published data only}
    1. Wolffsohn JS, Dinardo C, Vingrys AJ. Benefit of coloured lenses for age‐related macular degeneration. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2002;22(4):300‐11. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Demers‐Turco 2001 {published data only}
    1. Demers‐Turco P, Sonsino J, Arai M, Hirose T. Comparison of three low vision reading devices. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2001;42:ARVO Abstract 4598.
Goodrich 1998 {published data only}
    1. Goodrich GL, Kirby J, Keswick C, Donald B, Oros T, Wagstaff P, et al. Low vision reading: effect of field loss, training and device. American Academy of Optometry 1998:25.
Goodrich 2000a {published data only}
    1. Goodrich GL, Kirby J. A comparison of low vision reading performance by type of reading aid and patient field characteristic. Optometry and Vision Science 2000;77(12):126.
Goodrich 2001a {published data only}
    1. Goodrich G. Nomad: a preliminary study of possible rehabilitation applications. Optometry and Vision Science 2001;78(12):291.
Kaida 2005 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Kaida M, Maeda J, Inoue K, Murasawa M, Yamaguchi M, Nakamura H, et al. A hand‐held retinal projection system as a low‐vision aid. Japanese Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 2005;59(4):437‐40.
Sonsino 2000 {published data only}
    1. Sonsino J, Demers‐Turco P, Arai M, Fujita K, McCabe P, Hirose T. Reading performance of a new portable head‐mounted closed circuit television for low vision patients: Powervision. Optometry and Vision Science 2000;77(12):239.

Additional references

Ahn 1995a
    1. Ahn JS, Legge GE, Luebker A. Printed cards for measuring low‐vision reading speed. Vision Research 1995;35(13):1939‐44. - PubMed
Ahn 1995b
    1. Ahn SJ, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading. XIII. Clinical predictors of magnifier‐aided reading speed in low vision. Vision Research 1995;35(13):1931‐8. - PubMed
Alderson 2002
    1. Alderson P, Green S. Additional Module 2 In: The Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers. 2002. www.cochrane‐net.org/openlearning/PDF/Openlearning‐full.pdf (accessed 15 June 2006).
Binns 2012
    1. Binns AM, Bunce C, Dickinson C, Harper R, Tudor‐Edwards R, Woodhouse M, et al. How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Survey of Ophthalmology 2012;57(1):34‐65. - PubMed
Cheng 2001
    1. Cheng D, Woo GC. The effect of conventional CR39 and Fresnel prisms on high and low contrast acuity. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2001;21(4):312‐6. - PubMed
Congdon 2003
    1. Congdon NG, Friedman DS, Lietman T. Important causes of visual impairment in the world today. JAMA 2003;290(15):2057‐60. - PubMed
Congdon 2004
    1. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(4):477‐85. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Version accessed 19 January 2018. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, 2015.
Culham 2005 (pers comm)
    1. Culham 2005. Randomisation used in the trial. Email to: L Culham 20 Aug 2005.
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editors. Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org. March 2011.
Deeks 2011b
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Dickinson 1998
    1. Dickinson C. Low Vision: Principles and Practice. 4th Edition. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 1998.
Dickinson C 2017 (pers comm)
    1. Dickinson C. information on randomisation sequence generation on the trial Taylor 2017. Email to: C dickinson 9 DEC 2017.
Elbourne 2002
    1. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, Curtin F, Worthington HV, Veil A. Meta‐analyses involving cross‐over trials: methodological issues. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002;31(1):140‐9. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Goodrich 2007 (pers comm)
    1. Goodrich 2007. Randomisation sequence generation in the trial. Email to: G Goodrich 21 JAN 2007.
GRADEpro 2014 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 4 December 2017. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2014.
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Hirji 2009
    1. Hirji KF, Fagerland MW. Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern. Trials 2009;10:33. - PMC - PubMed
Hooper 2008
    1. Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G, Russel‐Minda E. Age‐related macular degeneration and low‐vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;43(2):180‐7. - PubMed
Humphry 1986
    1. Humphry RC, Thompson GM. Low vision aids ‐ evaluation in a general eye department. Transactions of the Ophthalmological Societies of the United Kingdom 1986;105(Pt 3):296‐303. - PubMed
Jackson 2017 (pers comm)
    1. Jackson ML. Additional data on trial results. Email to: ML Jackson 14 DEC 2017.
Johnson 2017
    1. Johnson A (pers comm). Additional data and the identification of an earlier duplicate publication of Morrice 2017 as an ARVO abstract. Email to: A Johnson 9 DEC 2017.
Langelaan 2007
    1. Langelaan M, Nispen RMA. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation and monodisciplinary rehabilitation for visually impaired adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006543] - DOI
Lavinsky 2001
    1. Lavinsky J, Tomasetto G, Soares E. Use of a contact lens telescopic system in low vision patients. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2001;24(4):337‐40. - PubMed
Leat 1994
    1. Leat SJ, Fryer A, Rumney NJ. Outcome of low vision aid provision: the effectiveness of a low vision clinic. Optometry and Visual Science 1994;71(3):199‐206. - PubMed
Legge 1985a
    1. Legge GE, Pelli DG, Rubin GS, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading. I. Normal vision. Vision Research 1985;25(2):239‐52. - PubMed
Legge 1985b
    1. Legge GE, Rubin GS, Pelli DG, Schleske MM. Psychophysics of reading. II. Low vision. Vision Research 1985;25(2):253‐65. - PubMed
Legge 1989
    1. Legge GE, Ross JA, Maxwell KT, Luebker A. Psychophysics of reading. VII. Comprehension in normal and low vision. Clinical Vision Sciences 1989;4:51‐60.
Legge 1991
    1. Legge G, Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture 1990: three perspectives on low vision reading. Optometry and Vision Science 1991;68(10):763‐9. - PubMed
Legge 2007
    1. Legge GE. Psychophysics of Reading in Normal and Low Vision. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Margrain 1999
    1. Margrain TH. Minimising the impact of visual impairment. Low vision aids are a simple way of alleviating impairment. BMJ 1999;318(7197):1504. - PMC - PubMed
Markowitz 2013
    1. Markowitz SN, Reyes SV, Sheng L. The use of prisms for vision rehabilitation after macular function loss: an evidence‐based review. Acta Ophthalmologica 2013;91:207‐11. - PubMed
Massof 1998
    1. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Optometry and Visual Science 1998;75(5):349‐73. - PubMed
Nilsson 1990
    1. Nilsson UL. Visual rehabilitation with and without educational training in the use of optical aids and residual vision. A prospective study of patients with advanced age‐related macular degeneration. Clinical Vision Sciences 1990;6(1):3‐10.
Pascolini 2011
    1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;96(5):614‐8. - PubMed
Rubin 2013
    1. Rubin GS. Measuring reading performance. Vision Research 2013;90:43‐51. - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Scott 1999
    1. Scott I, Smiddy W, Schiffman J, Feuer W, Pappas C. Quality of life of low vision patients and the impact of low vision services. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1999;128(1):54‐61. - PubMed
Shuttleworth 1995
    1. Shuttleworth GN, Dunlop A, Collins JK, James CR. How effective is an integrated approach to low vision rehabilitation? Two year follow up results from south Devon. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1995;79(8):719‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Sloan 1971
    1. Sloan LL, Ryan SJ Jr. Reading aids for the partially sighted. A nontechnical explanation of basic optical principles. International Ophthalmology Clinics 1971;11(1):19‐55. - PubMed
Smallfield 2013
    1. Smallfield S, Clem K, Myers A. Occupational therapy interventions to improve the reading ability of older adults with low vision: a systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2013;67(3):288‐95. - PubMed
Stelmack 2005 (pers comm)
    1. Stelmack J. Randomisation generation and allocation concealment used in trial. Email to: J Stelmack 10 Aug 2005.
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D editor(s). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Tielsch 1990
    1. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Witt K, Katz J, Royall RM. Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Archives of Ophthalmology 1990;108(2):286‐90. - PubMed
VA HTA 2003
    1. Veteran Affairs Technology Assessment Program. Optical devices for adults with low vision. A systematic review of published studies of effectiveness. www.va.gov/VATAP/docs/OpticalDevicesAdultsLowVision2003tm.pdf 2003.
Virtanen 1991
    1. Virtanen P, Laatikainen L. Primary success with low vision aids in age‐related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmologica Copenhagen 1991;69(4):484‐90. - PubMed
WHO 2002
    1. World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf (accessed 17 July 2011).
WHO 2010
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD). www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/index.html (accessed 15 Jan 2012).
Wolffsohn 2003
    1. Wolffsohn 2003 (pers comm). Additional data on Peterson 2003. Email to: JSW Wolffsohn 31 JAN 2007.

References to other published versions of this review

Virgili 2006
    1. Virgili G, Acosta R. Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Virgili 2013
    1. Virgili G, Acosta R, Grover LL, Bentley SA, Giacomelli G. Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003303.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources