MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390273812 · doi:10.1177/02646196231217414

Effects of low-vision rehabilitation on reading speed and depression in age-related macular degeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4390273812 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Visual Impairment · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineMacular degenerationRehabilitationMEDLINELow visionConfidence intervalVision rehabilitationDepression (economics)Strictly standardized mean differenceFunnel plotStudy heterogeneityVisual impairmentPublication biasOphthalmologyOptometryPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a prevalent eye disease, which can lead to vision loss, impacting daily functioning. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of low-vision rehabilitation techniques such as magnifiers, telescopes, and microperimeter feedback, on improving reading speed and reducing depression in AMD patients. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search of databases MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and CINHAL (EBSCO), gray literature including ClinicalTrials.gov and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest), Conferences of The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Canadian Ophthalmological Society were done from inception to 27 July 2022. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were applied to account for heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias was checked through funnel plots. A total of 33 studies (2611 subjects) were included;14 studies were included in the meta-analysis (1123 subjects) and 19 were included in the qualitative analysis. We found a non-significant increase in reading speed (effect size [ES] = 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−0.18, 0.23]) for studies comparing patients who received no low-vision rehabilitation, versus the intervention group of AMD patients who received low-vision rehabilitation. We also found a significant decrease in reading speed (ES = −0.92, 95% CI = [−1.46, −0.39]) between studies evaluating the difference in reading speed at baseline visits compared to the follow-up visits in AMD patients who received low-vision rehabilitation. Low-vision rehabilitation was also found to result in a decrease in depression severity when compared to control groups, as well as from initial assessment to subsequent follow-up visits. Individuals with AMD who engaged in low-vision rehabilitation demonstrated improved reading speeds compared to their own baseline and to those who did not receive any interventions. Furthermore, these interventions also contributed to a reduction in symptoms of depression.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it