Prismatic Image Relocation in Macular Disease: Effects on Visual Function and the Preferred Retinal Locus—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
4 affiliations
- 1Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28037 Madrid, Spain
- 2Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), 28041 Madrid, Spain
- 3Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Universidad CEU San Pablo, 28668 Madrid, Spain
- 4Applied Vision Research Group, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28037 Madrid, Spain
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of prismatic image relocation for visual rehabilitation in patients with macular disease and central vision loss, focusing on visual acuity, reading-related outcomes, preferred retinal locus (PRL) behaviour, fixation, and functional outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261500738). Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception, with searches conducted between 2 and 15 September 2026. Randomized, non-randomized comparative, pre-post, and case-series studies evaluating prism-based image relocation were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, or the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed when studies were sufficiently comparable. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomized controlled trials provided comparable data for an exploratory meta-analysis of distance visual acuity. The pooled point estimate favoured prism correction (MD, −0.218 logMAR), but the Hartung–Knapp-adjusted 95% confidence interval was extremely wide (−2.188 to 1.753) and included the null effect, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.5%). The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome was rated as very low. Sensitivity analyses did not materially strengthen the evidence. Observational studies frequently reported favourable visual or functional outcomes, but several were affected by important risks of selection bias, confounding, or absence of appropriate control groups. Evidence concerning PRL relocation and fixation behaviour was sparse, heterogeneous, predominantly non-randomized, and unsuitable for quantitative synthesis. Conclusions: Current evidence is insufficient to establish the routine efficacy of prismatic image relocation for improving distance visual acuity in patients with macular disease and central vision loss. Prism correction may nevertheless provide visual or functional benefit in selected individuals and may be considered as an individualized component of structured low-vision rehabilitation.
Related
- Topical Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors in Macular Edema: A Systematic Review
- Efficacy and Clinical Predictors of Topical NSAIDs as Bridging Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- OphthoEvidence report: Baseline structural optical coherence tomography biomarkers as predictors of visual outcomes following full-thickness macular hole surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
- Early Structure–Function Correlates in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Using Artificial Intelligence–Derived OCT Biomarkers
- OphthoEvidence Report: Comparative effects of treatments for geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration: A protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{povedanomontero2026prismatic,
title = {{Prismatic Image Relocation in Macular Disease: Effects on Visual Function and the Preferred Retinal Locus—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
author = {Francisco Javier Povedano-Montero and Rut González-Jiménez and Ricardo Bernárdez-Vilaboa and Sofia Bernardez-Sánchez and Juan E. Cedrún-Sánchez},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218322},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8322},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Prismatic Image Relocation in Macular Disease: Effects on Visual Function and the Preferred Retinal Locus—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Francisco Javier Povedano-Montero
AU - Rut González-Jiménez
AU - Ricardo Bernárdez-Vilaboa
AU - Sofia Bernardez-Sánchez
AU - Juan E. Cedrún-Sánchez
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218322
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8322
AB - Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of prismatic image relocation for visual rehabilitation in patients with macular disease and central vision loss, focusing on visual acuity, reading-related outcomes, preferred retinal locus (PRL) behaviour, fixation, and functional outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261500738). Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception, with searches conducted between 2 and 15 September 2026. Randomized, non-randomized comparative, pre-post, and case-series studies evaluating prism-based image relocation were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, or the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed when studies were sufficiently comparable. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomized controlled trials provided comparable data for an exploratory meta-analysis of distance visual acuity. The pooled point estimate favoured prism correction (MD, −0.218 logMAR), but the Hartung–Knapp-adjusted 95% confidence interval was extremely wide (−2.188 to 1.753) and included the null effect, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.5%). The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome was rated as very low. Sensitivity analyses did not materially strengthen the evidence. Observational studies frequently reported favourable visual or functional outcomes, but several were affected by important risks of selection bias, confounding, or absence of appropriate control groups. Evidence concerning PRL relocation and fixation behaviour was sparse, heterogeneous, predominantly non-randomized, and unsuitable for quantitative synthesis. Conclusions: Current evidence is insufficient to establish the routine efficacy of prismatic image relocation for improving distance visual acuity in patients with macular disease and central vision loss. Prism correction may nevertheless provide visual or functional benefit in selected individuals and may be considered as an individualized component of structured low-vision rehabilitation.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -