SynthesisOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2022
Topical Review: Impact of Central Vision Loss on Navigation and Obstacle Avoidance while Walking.
Synthesis in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Developments in Research to Make the World Better for People with Low Vision.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Advancements in Visual Field Testing: A Systematic Review of the 24-2C Test Grid.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reliability of Obstacle-Crossing Parameters during Overground Walking in Young Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Contribution of peripheral vision to attentional learning.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
significanceIndividuals with central vision loss are at higher risk of injury when walking and thus may limit trips outside the home. Understanding the mobility challenges associated with central vision loss (CVL) can lead to more effective interventions.A systematic literature review focusing on mobility in CVL was conducted. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, 2424 articles were identified in 4 databases (PsycINFO, APA PsycArticles, PubMed, and Web of Science). To be included within this review, the study methodology needed to be related to the three components of walking: (1) navigation, defined as the ability to reach a target destination; (2) obstacle avoidance, defined as the ability to avoid collisions with obstacles located at various heights and directions; and (3) street crossing, defined as the ability to both navigate a path and avoid collisions in a traffic environment. The methodology also needed to be empirical. Case studies, unstructured observational studies, studies based on self-report, research proposals, and existing systematic reviews were excluded. Titles, abstracts, and full text of identified articles were screened, yielding 26 articles included in the review. Results showed that, in many tasks, individuals with CVL can accomplish a level of performance comparable with individuals with normal vision. Differences between normal and impaired vision were due to either age or how the groups completed the task. For example, individuals with CVL could cross a street successfully but did so less safely (i.e., smaller safety margins) than individuals with normal vision. To identify new interventions for CVL, future research should focus on the differences in the mechanisms underlying mobility between individuals with normal and impaired vision rather than solely on performance differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.