| Prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles for adults with low vision | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient or population: Adults with low vision Settings: Intervention: Prism spectacles Comparison: Conventional spectacles | ||||||
| Comparison | Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles | |||||
| Custom prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles | Reading speed (words per minute) | The mean reading speed using conventional spectacles was 67 words per minute | The mean reading speed using custom prism spectacles was 6 lower (25.42 lower to 13.42 higher) | 150 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2 | Smith 2005 |
| Reading acuity in logMAR | The mean reading acuity using conventional spectacles was 1.50 logMAR | The mean reading acuity using custom prism spectacles was 0.07 higher (0.05 lower to 0.19 higher) | 150 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2 | Smith 2005 | |
| Quality of life (NEIVFQ score) Scale from: 0-100. | The mean quality of life using conventional spectacles was 53 score | The mean quality of life using custom prism spectacles was 0 higher (5.62 lower to 5.62 higher) | 153 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1 | Smith 2005 | |
| Standard prism spectacles versus conventional spectacles | Reading speed (words per minute) | The mean reading speed using conventional spectacles was 67 words per minute | The mean reading speed 155 using standard prism (1 study) spectacles was 7 lower (25.91 lower to 11.91 higher) | 155 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2 | Smith 2005 |
| Reading acuity in logMAR | The mean reading acuity score using conventional spectacles was 1.50 logMAR | The mean reading acuity using standard prism spectacles was 0.06 higher (0.06 lower to 0.18 higher) | 155 (1 study) | ⊕⊕○○ low1,2 | Smith 2005 | |
| Quality of life (NEIVFQ score) Scale from: 0-100. | The mean quality of life score using conventional spectacles was 53 | The mean quality of 156 life using standard prism (1 study) spectacles was 1 higher (4.75 lower to 6.75 higher) | 156 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕○ moderate1 | Smith 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.
Inconsistency cannot be assessed when a single trial is included.
Wide 95% confidence intervals.