| Electronic device (various types of CCTV) versus optical device for adults with low vision | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Patient or population: Adults with low vision Settings: Intervention: Electronic device (various types of CCTV) Comparison: Optical device | |||||
| Outcome: reading speed in words per minute (wpm) Comparison subgroups | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Studies | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Optical device | Electronic device (various types of CCTV) versus optical device | ||||
| Stand-mounted CCTV versus best prescribed optical device | The mean reading speed in the control group (best prescribed optical device) was 64 words per minute | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using a stand-mounted CCTV was 12 higher (2.51 lower to 26.51 higher) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Goodrich 2001 |
| Stand-mounted CCTV versus participant's optical device | The mean reading speed in the control group (participant's optical device) was 65.8 words per minute | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using a stand-mounted CCTV was 45.5 higher (25.07 lower to 65.03 higher) | 70 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3,4 | Peterson 2003 |
| Mouse-based device (27” TV monitor) versus optical device | The mean reading speed using an optical device was 64 words per minute | The mean reading speed using a mouse-based device (27”TV monitor) was 15.8 higher (0.42 to 31.18 higher) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Goodrich 2001 |
| Mouse-based device (14” monitor) versus participant's optical device | The mean reading speed in the control group (participant's optical device) was 65.8 words per minute | The mean reading speed using a mouse-based device (14” monitor) was 40.5 higher (23.71 to 57.29 higher) | 70 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ low 1,2,3,4 | Peterson 2003 |
| Flipperport head-mounted CCTV (table stand camera) versus optical device | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using an optical device was 95 words per minute | The mean reading speed using a Flipperport head-mounted CCTV (table stand camera) was 24.6 lower (40.88 to 8.32 lower) | 20 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Culham 2004 |
| Jordy head-mounted CCTV versus optical device | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using an optical device was 95 words per minute | The mean reading speed using Jordy head-mounted CCTV was 33.7 lower (50.34 to 17.06 lower) | 20 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Culham 2004 |
| Maxport head-mounted CCTV versus optical device | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using an optical device was 95 word per minute | The mean reading speed using Maxport head-mounted CCTV was 29.4 lower (45.74 to 13.06 lower) | 20 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Culham 2004 |
| NuVision head-mounted CCTV versus optical device | The mean reading speed (words per minute) using an optical device was 95 word per minute | The mean reading speed using NuVision head-mounted CCTV was 40 lower (56 to 23.3 lower) | 20 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Culham 2004 |
| Outcome: Reading duration (minutes) Comparison: stand CCTV versus optical device | The mean reading duration (minutes) in the control groups was 23 minutes | The mean reading duration (minutes) in the intervention groups was 13.7 higher (7.9 higher to 19.5 higher) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Goodrich 2001 |
| Outcome: Reading duration (minutes) Comparison: stand CCTV versus optical device | The mean reading duration (minutes) in the control groups was 23 minutes | The mean reading duration (minutes) in the intervention groups was 12.8 higher (9.3 higher to 16.3 higher) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1,2 | Goodrich 2001 |
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Masking of participants not used in this review since it is not possible with low vision aids.
Inconsistency cannot be assessed when a single, or few, small cross-over trials are included.
Wide confidence intervals.
Not all participants in a paired study could read with both the electronic and the optical device.