Comment on “Clinical effectiveness of currently available low-vision devices in glaucoma patients with moderate-to-severe vision loss”

Abstract

Joshua R Ehrlich, Sayoko E MoroiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAWe read with great interest the article by Patodia et al entitled, “Clinical effectiveness of currently available low-vision devices in glaucoma patients with moderate-to-severe vision loss.”1 The authors presented a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which subjects with glaucoma and low vision were assigned to observation or to receive standard low vision device(s). Using the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48), the researchers found an improvement in reading ability and overall visual ability among those allocated to treatment compared to the control arm.The authors correctly note that this is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness of low vision services for patients with glaucoma. In fact, there is also no rigorous evidence for the effectiveness of low vision interventions for patients with other causes of peripheral field loss (PFL) such as retinitis pigmentosa, hemianopia, or dense pan- retinal photogoagulation;2 this lack of evidence is concerning since around one-fifth of patients with low vision have been found to have significant PFL.3 Patodia et al1 point out that different patterns of functional impairment are likely to result from central and peripheral vision loss. Although this has been corroborated by prior research, there is still an inadequate qualitative understanding of how PFL affects patients’ day-to-day lives and how this is impacted by demographic and sociological features such as age, gender, culture, and place.View the original paper by Patodia et al.

Keywords

• Glaucoma
• Low Vision
• Rehabilitation
• Patient-Reported Outcomes
• Mixed Methods