严重学习困难儿童的视力评估:系统回顾。

Q3 Medicine British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.22599/bioj.324
Hareem Esmail, Gemma Arblaster, Laura Haslam
{"title":"严重学习困难儿童的视力评估:系统回顾。","authors":"Hareem Esmail, Gemma Arblaster, Laura Haslam","doi":"10.22599/bioj.324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Children with learning difficulties that require a vision assessment may not be able to perform standard clinical vision tests, for example, Forced Choice Preferential Looking (FCPL). There is a lack of standardisation on the procedure of vision assessment in this group of children. The aim of this literature review was to identify and evaluate methods of vision assessment when standard clinical vision tests are not possible in children with severe learning difficulties.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from inception to Nov 2022 for methods of vision assessment in children with learning difficulties. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. The McMaster University Critical review form for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-hundred and seventy one papers were identified from databases and 16 were identified from searching reference lists and grey literature. Of the 587, five studies were relevant and fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three methods of vision assessment were identified: Visually Evoked Potentials (VEP), questionnaires, and the Bradford visual function box (BVFB).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The VEP method was validated and reliable, although it had a similar success rate to the standardised FCPL tests in children with learning difficulties. The BVFB was a standardised method for measurement of vision threshold in children that cannot successfully complete FCPL tests, however it has not been validated. Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather descriptive information on the child's functional vision, however no guidance on the interpretation of the information is available. The BVFB and questionnaires require further development and validation. All three methods (VEP, questionnaires, and BVFB) can be useful as part of the assessment of vision in a child with severe learning difficulties where standard clinical tests are not possible, when used in a standardised manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":36083,"journal":{"name":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"94-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976986/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Assessment of Vision in Children with Severe Learning Difficulties: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Hareem Esmail, Gemma Arblaster, Laura Haslam\",\"doi\":\"10.22599/bioj.324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Children with learning difficulties that require a vision assessment may not be able to perform standard clinical vision tests, for example, Forced Choice Preferential Looking (FCPL). There is a lack of standardisation on the procedure of vision assessment in this group of children. The aim of this literature review was to identify and evaluate methods of vision assessment when standard clinical vision tests are not possible in children with severe learning difficulties.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from inception to Nov 2022 for methods of vision assessment in children with learning difficulties. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. The McMaster University Critical review form for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-hundred and seventy one papers were identified from databases and 16 were identified from searching reference lists and grey literature. Of the 587, five studies were relevant and fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three methods of vision assessment were identified: Visually Evoked Potentials (VEP), questionnaires, and the Bradford visual function box (BVFB).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The VEP method was validated and reliable, although it had a similar success rate to the standardised FCPL tests in children with learning difficulties. The BVFB was a standardised method for measurement of vision threshold in children that cannot successfully complete FCPL tests, however it has not been validated. Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather descriptive information on the child's functional vision, however no guidance on the interpretation of the information is available. The BVFB and questionnaires require further development and validation. All three methods (VEP, questionnaires, and BVFB) can be useful as part of the assessment of vision in a child with severe learning difficulties where standard clinical tests are not possible, when used in a standardised manner.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"94-104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976986/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.324\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有学习困难而需要进行视力评估的儿童可能无法进行标准的临床视力测试,例如强迫选择优先注视(FCPL)。对这类儿童进行视力评估的程序缺乏标准化。本文献综述旨在确定和评估在无法对严重学习困难儿童进行标准临床视力测试时的视力评估方法:方法:检索了三个数据库(CINAHL、PubMed、Web of Science)中从开始到 2022 年 11 月有关学习困难儿童视力评估方法的内容。此外,还检索了参考文献目录和灰色文献。采用麦克马斯特大学定量研究批判性审查表评估所发现的主要研究的方法质量:从数据库中确定了 571 篇论文,通过检索参考文献目录和灰色文献确定了 16 篇论文。在这 587 篇论文中,有 5 篇符合所有纳入和排除标准。研究确定了三种视力评估方法:讨论:视觉诱发电位(VEP)、问卷调查和布拉德福德视觉功能盒(BVFB):讨论:视觉诱发电位法是经过验证的可靠方法,尽管它在学习困难儿童中的成功率与标准化的 FCPL 测试相似。BVFB 是一种标准化方法,用于测量无法成功完成 FCPL 测试的儿童的视阈,但该方法尚未得到验证。问卷调查是收集儿童功能性视力描述性信息的有效方法,但目前还没有关于如何解释这些信息的指导。BVFB和问卷需要进一步开发和验证。在无法进行标准临床测试的情况下,所有这三种方法(VEP、问卷和 BVFB)在以标准化的方式使用时,都可以作为严重学习困难儿童视力评估的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Assessment of Vision in Children with Severe Learning Difficulties: A Systematic Review.

Background: Children with learning difficulties that require a vision assessment may not be able to perform standard clinical vision tests, for example, Forced Choice Preferential Looking (FCPL). There is a lack of standardisation on the procedure of vision assessment in this group of children. The aim of this literature review was to identify and evaluate methods of vision assessment when standard clinical vision tests are not possible in children with severe learning difficulties.

Method: Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from inception to Nov 2022 for methods of vision assessment in children with learning difficulties. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. The McMaster University Critical review form for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies identified.

Results: Five-hundred and seventy one papers were identified from databases and 16 were identified from searching reference lists and grey literature. Of the 587, five studies were relevant and fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three methods of vision assessment were identified: Visually Evoked Potentials (VEP), questionnaires, and the Bradford visual function box (BVFB).

Discussion: The VEP method was validated and reliable, although it had a similar success rate to the standardised FCPL tests in children with learning difficulties. The BVFB was a standardised method for measurement of vision threshold in children that cannot successfully complete FCPL tests, however it has not been validated. Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather descriptive information on the child's functional vision, however no guidance on the interpretation of the information is available. The BVFB and questionnaires require further development and validation. All three methods (VEP, questionnaires, and BVFB) can be useful as part of the assessment of vision in a child with severe learning difficulties where standard clinical tests are not possible, when used in a standardised manner.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Opinions on Amblyopia Treatment in Microtropia - A Questionnaire Study of Orthoptists in Scandinavia. Spectrum of Visual Dysfunction Detected by a Novel Testing Protocol Within a Special School Eye Care Service. Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) Versus Traditional Patient Information Leaflets for Local Anesthesia in Eye Surgery: Correspondence. Compliance and Determinants of Spectacle Wear Among Moroccan Adults Residing Beni-Mellal Khénifra Region. Risk Factors for Acute Acquired Comitant Esotropia in Children and Young Adults: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1