مؤسسة الشرق الأوسط للنشر العلمي
عادةً ما يتم الرد في غضون خمس دقائق
Background: Visual impairment affects more than 2.2 billion people globally, with at least one billion cases preventable or untreated. [1-3] Optical and electronic low vision aids are important rehabilitation tools, yet their relative prescribing patterns and effectiveness are controversial. Methods: A narrative review for literature between the years 2015 and 2025 was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and WHO resources. A priority was given to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, cohort studies, and WHO/IPEC policy reports. Comparisons between optical and electronic low vision aids were synthesized across prescribing, usage, effectiveness, quality of life, and economics. Results: Optical aids such as handheld magnifiers, and telescopes are the most prescribed worldwide due to affordability and simplicity of their use.[4- 6] Electronic aids such as video magnifiers, and smartphone/tablet applications provide adjustable magnification range, contrast enhancement, and a wider field of view, in addition, clinical trials showing superior reading performance and user satisfaction in selected populations. [7- 14] Prescribing patterns vary by the cause of visual impairment, region, and age, showing that macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy patients most likely to benefit from electronic aids. Economic studies suggest that electronic aids may be more cost effective for frequent readers compared to optical aids, however affordability and training needs limit their adoption. [15-17] Conclusions: Integration of optical and electronic aids, supported by patients’ requirements and structured training, optimizes vision rehabilitation results. Future research must standardize outcome measures, evaluate long term cost effectiveness, and afford equitable access in the light of WHO’s IPEC plan. [1-3]