ライフサイエンスコーパス: low vision

1 different patients with different degrees of low vision.

2 d in 50 normal subjects and 42 subjects with low vision.

3 influence of font in reading with normal and low vision.

4 nt size, and reading speed for subjects with low vision.

5 ating reading in individuals with normal and low vision.

6 ulness of this device among individuals with low vision.

7 taract, cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis, and low vision.

8 ilaterally blind, and 12 patients (0.5%) had low vision.

9 he subjects with vitreo-retinal disorder had low vision.

10 isibility of ramps and steps for people with low vision.

11 l search was greatly impaired in youths with low vision.

12 visual functions in youths with typical and low vision.

13 visual function was impaired in youths with low vision.

14 portant for the safe mobility of people with low vision.

15 s to different aspects of QoL in people with low vision.

16 recognition of these targets by people with low vision.

17 acuity-reducing goggles, would generalize to low vision.

18 before in Retinitis Pigmentosa patients with low vision.

19 e, 0.05 logMAR, P < 0.001) and subjects with low vision (0.09 logMAR, P < 0.001).

20 isual disturbance (29% vs. 9%), blindness or low vision (5% vs. 0.5%), retinal detachment (11% vs. 0.

21 The mean near VA with the appropriate low-vision aid was 0.91+/-0.18 (M notation) at baseline.

22 tic factor for successful use of a hand-held low-vision aid.

23 We estimated costs of informal care, low vision aids, special education, school screening, go

24 also better in the 7 patients who used other low-vision aids (9.7 [0.5] vs 6.0 [2.6], respectively; m

25 lty of targeted items may reflect the use of low-vision aids and training to make tasks easier.

26 visual acuity with no low-vision aids, using low-vision aids if available, and using the portable art

27 ad-mounted displays with commonly prescribed low-vision aids to compare their effectiveness in addres

28 g their best-corrected visual acuity with no low-vision aids, using low-vision aids if available, and

29 ogies may offer advantages over conventional low-vision aids.

30 vices have the greatest potential for use as low-vision aids.

31 Prevalence of 4.6% of optically reversible low vision and 1.8% of blindness reversible by optical c

32 d retinal detachment 0.10%.The prevalence of low vision and blindness due to vitreo-retinal disorders

33 The prevalence of low vision and blindness was 28.77% (95% CI, 22.78-35.37

34 Cumulative lifetime risks of low vision and blindness were estimated using Kaplan-Mei

35 l parameters and cumulative lifetime risk of low vision and legal blindness were assessed.

36 nd locomotion were qualitatively similar for low vision and normal vision with artificial acuity redu

37 Most patients with low vision are elderly and have functional limitations f

38 surance coverage, eye disease diagnoses, and low vision/blindness at baseline.

39 he characteristics of patients attending the low vision clinic of a Nigerian tertiary hospital.

40 tional study of all new patients seen at the low vision clinic over a 36 month period.

41 nocular visual acuity</=6/18 and attending a low vision clinic, were recruited.

42 A consecutive series of 851 patients at a low-vision clinic rated the importance of driving on a f

43 (DR) and other ocular diseases, managed in a low-vision clinic, in four different types of functional

44 ant public health problem; however, very few low vision clinics are available to address the needs of

45 opular means of measuring reading ability in low-vision clinics; yet, to date there are no standards

46 in fovea, motion sensitivity of youths with low vision deteriorated in the periphery.

47 tionnaire, and were examined and tested with low vision devices by the attending low vision specialis

48 Interventions: Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with t

49 Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with t

50 ring glasses or contact lenses or were using low-vision devices.

51 tant increase in the number of patients with low vision due to age-related macular degeneration and o

52 a on the prevalence and causes of functional low vision (FLV) in adults and children are lacking but

53 Finally, clinicians can direct patients with low vision from any cause to resources designed to help

54 Although 4 eyes (1.7%) had uncorrected low vision from VKC-induced corneal astigmatism or kerat

55 5) by group varied from 5 to 15 dB, and most low-vision groups performed more reliably than CTL subje

56 imited visual impairment was noted in 22.3%, low vision in 29.7%, and legal blindness in 48.0%.

57 many, but not all, patients with ME causing low vision in a tertiary care setting will enjoy meaning

58 e (CI, -15.1% to -10.4%; P<0.001), to -19.4% low vision in both eyes (CI, -20.8% to -18.1%; P<0.001),

59 prevalence and determinants of blindness and low vision in Nakuru district, Kenya.

60 P<0.001), to -52.9% blindness in one eye and low vision in other eye (CI, -55.3% to -50.4%; P<0.001),

61 important cause of reversible blindness and low vision in the Brazilian population.

62 Patients were considered for FMT if they had low vision in the fellow eye and choroidal neovasculariz

63 ing from -11.2% normal vision in one eye and low vision in the other eye (95% confidence interval [CI

64 An integrated mental health and low vision intervention halved the incidence of depressi

65 Low vision is an important public health problem; howeve

66 Low vision is irreversible in many patients and constitu

67 igators on visual endpoints in patients with low vision, it is encouraging that during the observatio

68 tiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs.

69 tiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs.

70 h Courier (P < 0.001), but for subjects with low vision, maximum reading speeds were 10% slower with

71 with typical vision (n = 7, ages 10-17) and low vision (n = 24, ages 9-18).

72 Effects of low vision on peripheral visual function are poorly unde

73 cted visual field status, visual acuity, and low vision or blindness as defined by the World Health O

74 so noted age at diagnosis and death and when low vision or blindness occurred.

75 population ages, all physicians who care for low vision or elderly patients should be aware of its cl

76 logMAR for normal subjects and subjects with low vision, P < 0.002).

77 Sixteen subjects with heterogeneous forms of low vision participated-acuities from approximately 20/2

78 linics are available to address the needs of low vision patients in most developing countries.

79 aid the planning and delivery of services to low vision patients in these countries.

80 demographic and clinical characteristics of low vision patients seen in this clinic are similar to t

81 The ability of low vision patients to discriminate the facial emotions

82 ual objects could enhance the performance of low vision patients who primarily perceive images of low

83 One hundred thirty-five consecutive low vision patients with varying diagnoses and 30 contro

84 ovel tools to improve the quality of life of low vision patients.

85 ove future attempts at image enhancement for low vision patients.

86 Low-vision patients appeared to devalue the goal of driv

87 ision necessary to measure visual ability of low-vision patients with moderate to severe vision loss

88 autosomal recessive trait, characterized by low vision, photophobia, and lack of color discriminatio

89 Its use in conjunction with clinical low-vision programs may pave the way for developing bett

90 The Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL), the Adaptation to Ag

91 a significant difference in both normal and low-vision reading performance.

92 Little is known about the effect of font on low-vision reading.

93 The Memory or Reasoning Enhanced Low Vision Rehabilitation (MORE-LVR) program was created

94 rs in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from Ap

95 rs in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study.

96 An increased provision of low vision rehabilitation services may be required to co

97 ate comparative clinical outcome research in low vision rehabilitation, we must use patient-centered

98 ropriate way to measure the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation.

99 unaware of any standardized protocols within low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) to address cognitive imp

100 nsiderations, and their potential for use in low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement.

101 their adult relative to an appointment at a low-vision rehabilitation clinic and self-identified the

102 New patients referred for low-vision rehabilitation were asked, "What are your chi

103 ipsychotic and other medications, as well as low-vision rehabilitation, are necessary to establish va

104 lement can be used to measure the effects of low-vision rehabilitation; however, only 7 of the 34 ite

105 jects with BRVO and CRVO, 37.25% and 50% had low vision, respectively.

106 y known methods for preventing blindness and low vision resulting from this frequently asymptomatic d

107 or further research into the determinants of low vision service utilisation in developing countries.

108 Greater availability of low vision services and ophthalmologist training in diag

109 patients and females may be under-utilising low vision services.

110 rs its second 5-year phase, the provision of low-vision services and their integration into national

111 n are lacking but are important for planning low-vision services.

112 In the RP group, median ages for reaching low vision, severe visual impairment, and blindness were

113 ted with low vision devices by the attending low vision specialist.

114 be stronger predictors of QoL in people with low vision than visual factors such as contrast sensitiv

115 ware when measuring QoL in a population with low vision that even vision-related QoL is strongly infl

116 ng rehabilitation should be a cornerstone of low-vision therapy.

117 mated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scor

118 mated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scor

119 Functional low vision was defined as a corrected visual acuity in t

120 The commonest cause of low vision was retinitis pigmentosa (16.6%); 14.5% had a

121 speeds of normal subjects and subjects with low vision were substantially slower (by as much as 50%)

122 Cataracts are a main cause of low vision; with the growing elderly population, the inc