| Diffractive spectacle mounted magnifiers compared to control for adults with low vision | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Patient or population: Adults with low vision Settings: Intervention: Diffractive spectacle-mounted magnifiers Comparison: Control |
||||||
| Comparison | Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Studies | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Diffractive spectacle mounted magnifiers | |||||
| Diffractive versus refractive-aspheric spectacle magnifier | MNREAD maximum reading speed (words/minute) | The mean maximum reading speed using refractive-aspheric spectacle magnifier was 99 words per minute | The mean maximum reading speed using diffractive spectacle magnifier was 0.94 lower (16.56 lower to 14.68 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕○⊕○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 |
| MNREAD critical print size (M print size) | The mean critical print size using refractive-as-pheric spectacle magnifier was 1.17 logMAR | The mean critical print size using diffractive spectacle magnifier was 0.10 lower (0.25 lower to 0.05 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 | |
| Morgan Low Vision Reading Comprehension Assessment | The mean reading comprehension using refractive-aspheric spectacle magnifier was 11.1 score | The mean reading comprehension using diffractive spectacle magnifier was 1.98 higher (0.67 to 3.29 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 | |
| Diffractive versus apla-natic spectacle magnifier | MNREAD maximum reading speed (words/minute) | The mean maximum reading speed using apla-natic spectacle magnifier was 110 words per minute | The mean maximum 15 reading speed using (1 study) diffractive spectacle magnifier was 2.6 higher(11.88 lower to 17.08 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 |
| MNREAD critical print size (M print size) | The mean critical print size using aplanatic spectacle magnifier was 1.03 logMAR | The mean critical print 15 size using diffractive (1 study) spectacle magnifier was 0.19 lower (0.40 lower to 0.02 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 | |
| Morgan Low Vision Reading Comprehension Assessment | The mean reading comprehension using aplanatic spectacle magnifier was 13.5 score | The mean reading com- 15 prehension using diffrac- (1 study) tive spectacle magnifier was 0.76 lower (1.98 lower to 0.46 higher) | 15 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2,3 | Watson 2005 | |
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 with only one included trial.
Wide 95% confidence interval.