低视力感知学习的效果:系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002157
Adela S Y Park, Ginny H T Wong, Ken W S Tan, Blossom W S Cheung, Mark Oremus, Allen M Y Cheong, Benjamin Thompson
{"title":"低视力感知学习的效果:系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Adela S Y Park, Ginny H T Wong, Ken W S Tan, Blossom W S Cheung, Mark Oremus, Allen M Y Cheong, Benjamin Thompson","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Visual perceptual learning (PL) shows promise for enhancing visual functions in individuals with visual impairment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of PL in improving visual function.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility: </strong>Eligible studies were those examining the efficacy of PL in individuals with low vision.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>The review protocol was registered with the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID CRD42022327545) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Screened studies were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty studies were included, covering various visual impairments and employing different PL interventions. Most studies had low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in visual search for individuals with cortical blindness (Hedges' g = 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.93; p=0.002); all other analyses did not show significant improvements-reading in central vision loss and cortical blindness, and visual field in peripheral vision loss and cortical blindness. However, the narrative synthesis provided evidence showing effectiveness, particularly in individuals with central vision loss and cortical blindness, demonstrating positive effects on reading, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and motion perception.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Variations in study design, PL protocols, outcome measures, and measurement methods introduced heterogeneity, limiting the analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The efficacy of PL in vision rehabilitation remains uncertain. Although meta-analysis results were mostly inconclusive, the narrative synthesis indicated improved visual functions following PL, consistent with individual study findings.</p><p><strong>Implications of key findings: </strong>Future research should optimize intervention parameters, explore long-term effects, and assess generalizability across diverse populations and visual impairment etiologies. Larger randomized controlled trials using standardized outcome measures are needed to advance the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":"101 6","pages":"305-320"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of perceptual learning in low vision: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Adela S Y Park, Ginny H T Wong, Ken W S Tan, Blossom W S Cheung, Mark Oremus, Allen M Y Cheong, Benjamin Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Visual perceptual learning (PL) shows promise for enhancing visual functions in individuals with visual impairment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of PL in improving visual function.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility: </strong>Eligible studies were those examining the efficacy of PL in individuals with low vision.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>The review protocol was registered with the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID CRD42022327545) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Screened studies were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty studies were included, covering various visual impairments and employing different PL interventions. Most studies had low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in visual search for individuals with cortical blindness (Hedges' g = 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.93; p=0.002); all other analyses did not show significant improvements-reading in central vision loss and cortical blindness, and visual field in peripheral vision loss and cortical blindness. However, the narrative synthesis provided evidence showing effectiveness, particularly in individuals with central vision loss and cortical blindness, demonstrating positive effects on reading, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and motion perception.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Variations in study design, PL protocols, outcome measures, and measurement methods introduced heterogeneity, limiting the analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The efficacy of PL in vision rehabilitation remains uncertain. Although meta-analysis results were mostly inconclusive, the narrative synthesis indicated improved visual functions following PL, consistent with individual study findings.</p><p><strong>Implications of key findings: </strong>Future research should optimize intervention parameters, explore long-term effects, and assess generalizability across diverse populations and visual impairment etiologies. Larger randomized controlled trials using standardized outcome measures are needed to advance the field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"volume\":\"101 6\",\"pages\":\"305-320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002157\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002157","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:视觉感知学习(PL视觉知觉学习(PL)有望提高视力障碍者的视觉功能:本系统综述旨在评估视觉感知学习在改善视觉功能方面的有效性:研究评估和综合方法:综述方案已在国际系统性综述前瞻性注册中心(ID CRD42022327545)注册,并遵循了《系统性综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)指南。筛选出的研究采用随机效应荟萃分析法进行综合,并根据无荟萃分析综合指南进行叙述性综合。证据质量采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和 JBI 准实验研究批判性评估工具进行评估:结果:共纳入了 50 项研究,涵盖各种视力障碍,并采用了不同的 PL 干预方法。大多数研究的偏倚风险较低。元分析表明,皮质盲患者的视觉搜索能力显著提高(Hedges'g = 0.71;95% 置信区间,0.48 至 0.93;p=0.002);所有其他分析均未显示显著提高--中心性视力损失和皮质盲患者的阅读能力以及周边性视力损失和皮质盲患者的视野能力。然而,叙述性综述提供的证据显示,特别是对中枢性视力丧失和皮质盲症患者的疗效,显示出对阅读、对比敏感度、视野和运动感知的积极影响:研究设计、PL 方案、结果测量和测量方法的差异带来了异质性,限制了分析的进行:结论:PL 对视力康复的疗效仍不确定。尽管荟萃分析结果大多没有定论,但叙述性综合结果表明,PL 治疗后视觉功能得到改善,这与个别研究结果一致:未来的研究应优化干预参数,探索长期效果,并评估其在不同人群和视力损伤病因中的普遍性。需要使用标准化结果测量方法进行更大规模的随机对照试验,以推动该领域的发展。
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
Efficacy of perceptual learning in low vision: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Visual perceptual learning (PL) shows promise for enhancing visual functions in individuals with visual impairment.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of PL in improving visual function.

Study eligibility: Eligible studies were those examining the efficacy of PL in individuals with low vision.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The review protocol was registered with the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID CRD42022327545) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Screened studies were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis following Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental studies.

Results: Fifty studies were included, covering various visual impairments and employing different PL interventions. Most studies had low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in visual search for individuals with cortical blindness (Hedges' g = 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.93; p=0.002); all other analyses did not show significant improvements-reading in central vision loss and cortical blindness, and visual field in peripheral vision loss and cortical blindness. However, the narrative synthesis provided evidence showing effectiveness, particularly in individuals with central vision loss and cortical blindness, demonstrating positive effects on reading, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and motion perception.

Limitations: Variations in study design, PL protocols, outcome measures, and measurement methods introduced heterogeneity, limiting the analysis.

Conclusions: The efficacy of PL in vision rehabilitation remains uncertain. Although meta-analysis results were mostly inconclusive, the narrative synthesis indicated improved visual functions following PL, consistent with individual study findings.

Implications of key findings: Future research should optimize intervention parameters, explore long-term effects, and assess generalizability across diverse populations and visual impairment etiologies. Larger randomized controlled trials using standardized outcome measures are needed to advance the field.

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
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.
期刊最新文献
Repeatability of tear film lipid layer interferometry measurements: A randomized, crossover study. Dual sensory loss and cognitive impairment: A study in elderly users of gerontological centers in a Galician urban area. Fall rates in bifocal, trifocal, and progressive addition lens glasses wearers. Systemic TRPV4 inhibition worsens retinal response to acute intraocular pressure elevation in older but not younger mice. Topical review: Challenges and solutions for eye care in long-term care.
×
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