. 2019 May 23;2019(5):CD008388. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008388.pub3

6. Results of studies comparing two different types of active interventions (i.e. interventions from different categories).

Study	Interventions	Outcome	Mean (or other reported result if no mean available)	Standard deviation	Number of participants	Statistical test/results
Compensation intervention versus restitution intervention
Modden 2012	Computer‐based restitution therapy	Visual field enlargement (visual field assessment from Test Battery of Attentional Performance)	3.9	4.9	15	Pre‐ to post‐treatment significant field expansion (P = 0.003)
	Computer‐based compensation therapy		2.9	4.0	15	Pre‐ to post‐treatment significant field expansion (P = 0.013)
	Computer‐based restitution therapy (RT)	Functional ability in ADL (improvement in Extended Barthel Index)	1.5	2.8	15	"No significant treatment effects were found when comparing ... RT/CT".
	Computer‐based compensation therapy (CT)		3.3	3.6	15
	Computer‐based restitution therapy (RT)	Reading: improvement in reading performance, reduction in number of errors (from baseline)	‐0.9	2.4	15	"There were no differences between RT and CT."
	Computer‐based compensation therapy (CT)		‐0.9	1.1	15	"There were no differences between RT and CT."
	Computer‐based restitution therapy (RT)	Visual scanning: reduction in number of omissions from baseline, cancellation tasks of the Test Battery of Attentional Performance	‐5.3	10.5	15	"... the improvement of the CT compared with the RT group did not meet the defined significance level after Bonferroni correction (P = .023)."
	Computer‐based compensation therapy (CT)		‐5.4	5.2	15
Roth 2009	Explorative scanning training (EST) (compensation)	Visual field: Tubingen automated perimetry	44.4	13.1	15	"Neither the EST group nor the FT group showed any differences in their TAP or SLO outcomes, quantified as the total number of stimuli detected in the blind hemifield (lowest P = 0.204)."
	Flicker stimulation training (FT)(restitution)	Visual field: Tubingen automated perimetry	35.7	15.2	13
	Explorative scanning training (EST) (compensation)	Quality of life (WHOQOL‐BREF)	12.93	1.67	15	"The EST group reported greater improvements (T2 minus T1 scores) in the WHOQOL social‐relationships domain (t test; t(20) = 2.217, P = 0.038)" (but no significant differences for other domains).
	Flicker stimulation training (FT) (restitution)	Quality of life (WHOQOL‐BREF)	13.23	1.3	13
	Explorative scanning training (EST) (compensation)	Reading (reading speed)	99.7	34.7	15	"Although the EST and FT groups differed in their reading speeds at T1, this difference remained unchanged [main effect of group, F(1,26) = 133.074, P < 0.0001, interaction, F < 1]".
	Flicker stimulation training (FT)(restitution)	Reading (reading speed)	140.2	20.9	13
Compensation intervention versus substitution intervention
Rowe 2010*	Fresnel prisms (substitution)	Visual Field (relative change in visual field area)	0.052	0.1396	24	ANOVA results: no significant differences between groups (P = 0.55, for comparison across 3 treatment groups)
	Visual search training (compensation)	Visual Field (relative change in visual field area)	0.0815	0.1488	24
	Fresnel prisms (substitution)	Extended activities of daily living (change in EADL from baseline)	15.2	4.8	22	"No evidence of differences ..."
	Visual search training (compensation)		15.2	4.4	22	"No evidence of differences ..."
	Fresnel prisms (substitution)	Reading (change in Radner reading speed)	17.4	21.3	24	"No evidence of differences ..."
	Visual search training (compensation)	Reading (change in Radner reading speed)	13.0	13.1	25	"No evidence of differences ..."
	Fresnel prisms (substitution)	Quality of life (VFQ‐25 total score)	68.2	18.4	24	"Visual function (using the VFQ 25‐10) improved at 26 weeks in the visual search training arm (60 [SD 19] to 68.4 [SD 20]) when compared to the Fresnel prisms (68.5 [SD 16.4] to 68.2 [18.4]) and standard care arms (63.7 [SD 19.4] to 59.8 [SD 22.7]: Table 6, ANCOVA P = 0.05)."
	Visual search training (compensation)	Quality of life (VFQ‐25 total score)	68.4	20.0	25
	Fresnel prisms (substitution)	Adverse events (number of participants with reported adverse events during study)	18 participants		26	"Given the extent and range of adverse events reported with prism wear, caution must be exercised if prescribing prism glasses as an intervention for homonymous hemianopia."
	Visual search training (compensation)		2 participants		30

*Rowe 2010 also had a control (standard care) group, and data were included in relevant meta‐analyses for compensatory and substitution interventions versus control. ^{ADL: activities of daily living ANCOVA: analysis of covariance (statistical test of) ANOVA: analysis of variance (statistical test of) CT: compensation therapy EADL: extended activities of daily living EST: explorative scanning training FT: flicker stimulation training RT: restitution therapy SD: standard deviation SLO: Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope T1: outcome asssessment timepoint 1 T2: outcome assessment timepoint 2 TAP: Tuebingen automated perimetry VFQ: visual function questionnaire WHOQOL‐BREF: World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument}