Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children

Liebrand-Schurink, Joyce; Cox, Ralf F. A.; Rens, Ger H. M. B. van; Cillessen, Antonius H. N.; Meulenbroek, Ruud G. J.; Boonstra, F. Nienke

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00944

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For them, it may be simplest to use Add Max to prescribe a spectacle addition or to compare with an existing addition. For non-presbyopic patients, for example children using stand magnifiers, 44,45 Add Max will be an estimate of accommodative demand required for viewing clearly through the magnifier. It must be stressed that there has been no research on whether using a spectacle addition has an effect on reading performance with stand magnifiers and this may be an area for further research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand magnifiers for low vision: description, prescription, assessment

Carkeet

2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stand magnifiers are still one of the most commonly prescribed classes of low vision devices. Their performance can be difficult to understand because stand magnifiers usually do not give an image at infinity. This review summarises the methods of describing image enlargement for stand magnifiers, emphasising their relationship to equivalent viewing distance (EVD). This is done in terms of the underlying optical equations, and measurement methods, and methods of prescribing. In the past, methods of determining EVD have been somewhat indirect, requiring accurate measurement of lens power, and image position. The use of digital photography provides an alternative, more direct, simpler method of determining EVD, which can be accomplished in‐office. This method is described and it is demonstrated how it gives comparable results to older methods with small, clinically non‐meaningful differences, that may be due to differences in image distance reference planes. Describing the performance of stand magnifiers in terms of their dioptric power, or in terms of ‘nominal magnification’ or ‘trade magnification’, is imprecise and misleading. It is better to use indices such as equivalent viewing power and EVD, which take into account the magnifier dioptric power, the image position of the magnifier and the distance a patient is from the magnifier. While EVD is a useful index for prescribing stand magnifiers, manufacturers do not always provide sufficient technical details to determine EVD for their stand magnifiers, and available tables of EVDs are more than a decade old and are likely to need updating. Photographic comparison provides a method for determining EVD, and this method can also be applied to other low vision devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand magnifiers for low vision: description, prescription, assessment

Carkeet

2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of Motor Skills in Children With Visual Impairment: A Systematic and Integrative Review

Bakke¹,

Cavalcante

Oliveira

et al. 2019

Clin Med Insights Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to review and examine the tools used to assess psychomotor performance of children with visual impairment. Databases, such as SCOPUS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Medline/EBSCO, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect, were searched using Mesh terms. Data from manuscripts fully available in these databases between 1994 and 2017 (except CINAHL—2014) concerning the evaluation, tool development, or intervention for the improvement of motor skills in children (age, 7-10 years) with visual impairment were collected. The Critical Review Form—Quantitative Studies was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. As a result, 1113 articles were found, but only 24 met the inclusion criteria; 66.7% of the articles had moderate quality, with unsatisfactory results regarding the validity and reliability of the tools used to assess these children, as well as the absence of clinical importance and practical application in such studies. Only the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 and Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 described data on the validation and reliability in visually impaired children. To minimize systematic errors and improve the quality of the investigations, increasing the number of studies regarding the tools, functionality of their activities, and testing the adaptions is necessary.

show abstract

Preference of Near-optical Low-vision Devices among Patients with Low Vision Attending Low-vision Clinic of a Tertiary Eye Hospital in Nepal

Bhusal,

Thapa,

Khadka

2024

Delhi Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study assessed the preference for near-optical low-vision devices by patients visiting the low-vision clinic of a tertiary eye hospital. Methods: A hospital-based descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 66 participants at the Low Vision Department of Lumbini Eye Institute and Research Center, Rupandehi, Nepal, from April 2023 to September 2023. A nonprobability, purposive sampling technique was used for sampling. Patients with the best-corrected visual acuity worse than 6/18 to Perception of light (PL) were included in the study. A detailed ophthalmological evaluation, visual acuity assessment, distance and near refractive correction, and low-vision evaluation were done. The patient’s preference for a low-vision device was assessed during low-vision evaluation based on visual acuity improvement and the patient’s subjective response. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software, version 17.0. Results: Among 66 patients, 40 were male and 26 were female. The mean age of patients was 28.50 ± 18.350 years. Overall 47 patients preferred near-optical low-vision devices. Among them, handheld (HH), stand, and spectacle magnifiers were preferred by 44.6%, 40.4%, and 14.9% of patients, respectively. The major causes of low vision were retinitis pigmentosa (16.7%) followed by nystagmus (15.2%). Conclusion: HH magnifiers were the most commonly preferred devices in a short period with proper counseling and demonstration. Identifying the preferred low-vision devices can help develop and implement the low-vision rehabilitation service effectively and reduce patient chair time for selecting low-vision devices.

show abstract

Effective and Efficient Stand Magnifier Use in Visually Impaired Children

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Stand magnifiers for low vision: description, prescription, assessment

Stand magnifiers for low vision: description, prescription, assessment

Assessment of Motor Skills in Children With Visual Impairment: A Systematic and Integrative Review

Preference of Near-optical Low-vision Devices among Patients with Low Vision Attending Low-vision Clinic of a Tertiary Eye Hospital in Nepal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About