Virgili G, Rubin G
University of Florence, Eye Clinic II, Department of Oto-neuro-ophthalmological Surgical Sciences, Via le Morgagni 85, Florence, Italy 50134.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19(3):CD003925. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003925.pub2.
Orientation and mobility (O&M) training is provided to people who are visually impaired to help them maintain travel independence. It teaches them new orientation and mobility skills to compensate for reduced visual information.
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of (O&M) training, with or without associated devices, for adults with low vision.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, SIGLE, EMBASE, National Research Register, Zetoc, LILACS, and the reference lists of articles. Updated searches were in 2006.
We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing (O&M) training with no training in adults with low vision.
Two authors independently assessed the search results for eligibility, evaluated study quality and extracted the data.
Two small studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. They were consecutive phases of development of the same training curriculum and assessment tool. The intervention was administered by a volunteer on the basis of written and oral instruction. In both studies the randomisation technique was inadequate, being based on alternation, and masking was not achieved. Training had no effect in the first study while it was found to be beneficial in the second. Reasons for this may have been: the high scores obtained in the first study, suggestive of little need for training and small room for further improvement (a ceiling effect), and the refinement of the curriculum allowing better tailoring to patients' specific needs and characteristics, in the second study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found two small trials with similar methods, comparing (O&M) training to physical exercise, which were unable to demonstrate a difference. Therefore, there is little evidence on which type of orientation and mobility training is better for people with low vision who have specific characteristics and needs. Orientation and mobility instructors and scientists should plan randomised controlled studies to compare the effectiveness of different types of (O&M) training. A consensus is needed on the adoption of standard measurement instruments of mobility performance which are proved to be reliable and sensitive to the diverse mobility needs of people with low vision. For this purpose, questionnaires and performance-based tests may represent different tools that explore people with low vision's subjective experience or their objective functioning, respectively.
定向与移动(O&M)训练是为视力受损者提供的,以帮助他们保持出行独立性。该训练教会他们新的定向与移动技能,以弥补视觉信息的减少。
本综述的目的是评估有或没有辅助设备的O&M训练对低视力成年人的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(其中包含Cochrane眼睛与视力组试验注册库)、MEDLINE、SIGLE、EMBASE、国家研究注册库、Zetoc、LILACS以及文章的参考文献列表。2006年进行了更新检索。
我们计划纳入将O&M训练与未对低视力成年人进行训练进行比较的随机或半随机试验。
两位作者独立评估检索结果的合格性、评估研究质量并提取数据。
两项小型研究符合纳入标准。它们是同一训练课程和评估工具开发的连续阶段。干预由一名志愿者根据书面和口头指导进行。在两项研究中,随机化技术都不充分,基于交替进行,且未实现盲法。在第一项研究中训练没有效果,而在第二项研究中发现训练是有益的。原因可能是:在第一项研究中获得的高分表明几乎不需要训练且进一步改善的空间很小(天花板效应),而在第二项研究中课程得到了改进,能够更好地根据患者的特定需求和特征进行调整。
该综述发现两项方法相似的小型试验,将O&M训练与体育锻炼进行比较,但未能证明两者存在差异。因此,几乎没有证据表明哪种定向与移动训练对具有特定特征和需求的低视力人群更好。定向与移动训练师和科学家应计划进行随机对照研究,以比较不同类型O&M训练的效果。需要就采用被证明可靠且对低视力人群多样化的移动需求敏感的移动性能标准测量工具达成共识。为此,问卷和基于表现的测试可能分别代表探索低视力人群主观体验或其客观功能的不同工具。