A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness of prism glasses, visual search training and standard care in hemianopia

Abstract

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Adaptation to poststroke visual field loss: A systematic review

“…A number of studies have specifically reported on subjective improvements in activities of daily living following compensatory therapy, such as improvements in mobility, reading, driving, and detection of obstacles (Bergsma et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2015; Keller & Lefin‐Rank, 2010; Aimola et al., 2014; Jacquin‐Courtois et al., 2013; Kerkhoff et al., 1994; Mazer et al., 2003; de Haan, Melis‐Dankers, Brouwer, Tucha, & Heutink, 2015; Hayes, Chen, Clarke, & Thompson, 2012; Nelles et al., 2001; Rowe, Conroy, et al., 2016). A study by de Haan et al.…”

“…A recently published pilot randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness of visual search compensatory training to standard care and the substitutive treatment of prism therapy (Rowe, Conroy, et al., 2016). Results from this trial showed significant improvements in vision‐related quality of life measures for participants undergoing visual search training, highlighting the need for further research in this area.…”

“…(2016) report a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of visual search compensatory training to standard care and the substitutive treatment of prism therapy. In this trial, eighteen patients (69%) in the Fresnel prism treatment arm experienced a total of 42 adverse events including headaches, diplopia, and visual confusion, versus 7% of patients in the visual search arm reporting adverse events (fatigue).…”

Comments about outcome measures for clinical trials of interventions for post-stroke patients with hemianopia

“…The authors reported in their earlier protocol paper, 2 that one of the aims of the pilot clinical trial was to consider “the appropriateness of the outcome measurements” (page 8). We feel the results reported in the recent pilot trial results paper, 1 and our comments here, require that there be a fundamental re-consideration of these outcome measures before they are implemented in a future full-scale clinical trial.…”

“…We write to comment on the recent paper by Rowe and colleagues 1 reporting the results of a pilot randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of treatments for post-stroke patients with hemianopia. Although the study followed generally accepted criteria for the design of clinical trials, there was a major problem with the selection of the primary outcome measure, and, as a result, with the use of that primary outcome measure as the basis of the sample size calculation for a future clinical trial.…”