![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
![Publish Open Access Finland]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110396/JournalAd-OA-Agreements.gif"})
![Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is now a fully Open Access journal]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/111031/JournalAd-Announce-Neuroscience.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to identify which treatments for post-stroke visual impairment have a supportive evidence base, and which are being used in practice without supportive evidence. A systematic review of the literature reporting on the available treatment options was compared against the visual treatments used in the Vision In Stroke (VIS) study. Treatments were identified for visual field, visual neglect, visual perception and ocular motility disorders. Visual scanning therapies for hemianopia and neglect have an established evidence base. However, a number, such as typoscopes and advice options, have limited detail of their effectiveness and require further research.
Funding
This research is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (CLAHRC NWC). The second author in this review article (F.R.) was the lead author in the VIS study. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.
Declaration of interest
One author (F.R.) led the Vision In Stroke (VIS) study discussed in this article. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.