Article

Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke.

Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Buchanan House, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK, G4 0BA.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2011; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008388.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Visual field defects are estimated to affect 20% to 57% of people who have had a stroke. Visual field defects can affect functional ability in activities of daily living (commonly affecting mobility, reading and driving), quality of life, ability to participate in rehabilitation, and depression, anxiety and social isolation following stroke. There are many interventions for visual field defects, which are proposed to work by restoring the visual field (restitution); compensating for the visual field defect by changing behaviour or activity (compensation); substituting for the visual field defect by using a device or extraneous modification (substitution); or ensuring appropriate diagnosis, referral and treatment prescription through standardised assessment or screening, or both.
To determine the effects of interventions for people with visual field defects after stroke.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2011), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (December 2009) and nine electronic bibliographic databases including CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2009), AMED (1985 to December 2009), and PsycINFO (1967 to December 2009). We also searched reference lists and trials registers, handsearched journals and conference proceedings and contacted experts.
Randomised trials in adults after stroke, where the intervention was specifically targeted at improving the visual field defect or improving the ability of the participant to cope with the visual field loss. The primary outcome was functional ability in activities of daily living and secondary outcomes included functional ability in extended activities of daily living, reading ability, visual field measures, balance, falls, depression and anxiety, discharge destination or residence after stroke, quality of life and social isolation, visual scanning, adverse events and death.
Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook an assessment of methodological quality for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, method of dealing with missing data, and other potential sources of bias.
Thirteen studies (344 randomised participants, 285 of whom were participants with stroke) met the inclusion criteria for this review. However, only six of these studies compared the effect of an intervention with a placebo, control or no treatment group and were included in comparisons within this review. Four studies compared the effect of scanning (compensatory) training with a control or placebo intervention. Meta-analysis demonstrated that scanning training is more effective than control or placebo at improving reading ability (three studies, 129 participants; mean difference (MD) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.59) and visual scanning (three studies, 129 participants; MD 18.84, 95% CI 12.01 to 25.66) but that scanning may not improve visual field outcomes (two studies, 110 participants; MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.88). There were insufficient data to enable generalised conclusions to be made about the effectiveness of scanning training relative to control or placebo for the primary outcome of activities of daily living (one study, 33 participants). Only one study (19 participants) compared the effect of a restitutive intervention with a control or placebo intervention and only one study (39 participants) compared the effect of a substitutive intervention with a control or placebo intervention.
There is limited evidence which supports the use of compensatory scanning training for patients with visual field defects (and possibly co-existing visual neglect) to improve scanning and reading outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about the impact of compensatory scanning training on functional activities of daily living. There is insufficient evidence to reach generalised conclusions about the benefits of visual restitution training (VRT) (restitutive intervention) or prisms (substitutive intervention) for patients with visual field defects after stroke.

1 Bookmark
 · 
188 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Homonymous hemianopia is a common and disabling visual problem after stroke. Currently, prism glasses and visual scanning training are proposed to improve it. The aim of this trial is to determine the effectiveness of these interventions compared to standard care.Methods and analysis The trial will be a multicentre three arm individually randomised controlled trial with independent assessment at 6 week, 12 week and 26 week post-randomisation. Recruitment will occur in hospital, outpatient and primary care settings in UK hospital trusts. A total of 105 patients with homonymous hemianopia and without ocular motility impairment, visual inattention or pre-existent visual field impairment will be randomised to one of three balanced groups. Randomisation lists will be stratified by site and hemianopia level (partial or complete) and created using simple block randomisation by an independent statistician. Allocations will be disclosed to patients by the treating clinician, maintaining blinding for outcome assessment. The primary outcome will be change in visual field assessment from baseline to 26 weeks. Secondary measures will include the Rivermead Mobility Index, Visual Function Questionnaire 25/10, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living, Euro Qual-5D and Short Form-12 questionnaires. Analysis will be by intention to treat.Ethics and dissemination This study has been developed and supported by the UK Stroke Research Network Clinical Studies Group working with service users. Multicentre ethical approval was obtained through the North West 6 Research ethics committee (Reference 10/H1003/119). The trial is funded by the UK Stroke Association. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05956042. Dissemination will consider usual scholarly options of conference presentation and journal publication in addition to patient and public dissemination with lay summaries and articles.Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05956042.
    BMJ Open 07/2014; 4(7). · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE There is a major lack of randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of prismatic treatments for hemianopia. Evidence for their effectiveness is mostly based on anecdotal case reports and open-label evaluations without a control condition. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of real relative to sham peripheral prism glasses for patients with complete homonymous hemianopia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Double-masked, randomized crossover trial at 13 study sites, including the Peli laboratory at Schepens Eye Research Institute, 11 vision rehabilitation clinics in the United States, and 1 in the United Kingdom. Patients were 18 years or older with complete homonymous hemianopia for at least 3 months and without visual neglect or significant cognitive decline. INTERVENTION Patients were allocated by minimization into 2 groups. One group received real (57-prism diopter) oblique and sham (<5-prism diopter) horizontal prisms; the other received real horizontal and sham oblique, in counterbalanced order. Each crossover period was 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the overall difference, across the 2 periods of the crossover, between the proportion of participants who wanted to continue with (said yes to) real prisms and the proportion who said yes to sham prisms. The secondary outcome was the difference in perceived mobility improvement between real and sham prisms. RESULTS Of 73 patients randomized, 61 completed the crossover. A significantly higher proportion said yes to real than sham prisms (64% vs 36%; odds ratio, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.8-21.0). Participants who continued wear after 6 months reported greater improvement in mobility with real than sham prisms at crossover end (P = .002); participants who discontinued wear reported no difference. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Real peripheral prism glasses were more helpful for obstacle avoidance when walking than sham glasses, with no differences between the horizontal and oblique designs. Peripheral prism glasses provide a simple and inexpensive mobility rehabilitation intervention for hemianopia. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00494676.
    Jama Ophthalmology 11/2013; 132(2). · 3.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims. To profile site of stroke/cerebrovascular accident, type and extent of field loss, treatment options, and outcome. Methods. Prospective multicentre cohort trial. Standardised referral and investigation protocol of visual parameters. Results. 915 patients were recruited with a mean age of 69 years (SD 14). 479 patients (52%) had visual field loss. 51 patients (10%) had no visual symptoms. Almost half of symptomatic patients (n = 226) complained only of visual field loss: almost half (n = 226) also had reading difficulty, blurred vision, diplopia, and perceptual difficulties. 31% (n = 151) had visual field loss as their only visual impairment: 69% (n = 328) had low vision, eye movement deficits, or visual perceptual difficulties. Occipital and parietal lobe strokes most commonly caused visual field loss. Treatment options included visual search training, visual awareness, typoscopes, substitutive prisms, low vision aids, refraction, and occlusive patches. At followup 15 patients (7.5%) had full recovery, 78 (39%) had improvement, and 104 (52%) had no recovery. Two patients (1%) had further decline of visual field. Patients with visual field loss had lower quality of life scores than stroke patients without visual impairment. Conclusions. Stroke survivors with visual field loss require assessment to accurately define type and extent of loss, diagnose coexistent visual impairments, and offer targeted treatment.
    BioMed research international. 01/2013; 2013:719096.

Full-text

Download
16 Downloads
Available from
Oct 23, 2014