Introduction: Low vision affects more than visual acuity; it substantially disrupts daily functioning and may contribute to long-term cognitive, emotional, and social consequences. When medical or surgical treatment options are no longer effective, structured low-vision rehabilitation becomes essential, providing strategies and tools that support functional adaptation and promote independence. This review aims to map the current outcomes of rehabilitation services, identify gaps in existing research, and highlight opportunities for further study. Methods: An article search was conducted via PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. Then, title, abstract, and full-text screenings for inclusion were performed by all the authors independently, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The relevant outcomes from the eligible publications were extracted by four authors and then cross-checked by the other authors. The results are presented via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Results: A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were randomized controlled trials (n = 10,77%), with the majority conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. Study populations consisted of adults aged 18 years and older. Across the included studies, low-vision rehabilitation interventions particularly visual training, magnification-based programs, and multidisciplinary approaches, were associated with significant improvements in visual function, activities of daily living, and vision-related quality of life. Conclusions: Low vision rehabilitation interventions demonstrate clear benefits for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, and functional independence. However, substantial gaps remain, including limited evidence on long-term outcomes, inconsistent assessment of psychosocial influences, and underrepresentation of diverse populations. Standardized outcome measures and long-term, inclusive research designs are needed to better understand the sustained and equitable impact of low-vision rehabilitation.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of advanced therapeutic approaches for inherited retinal disease (IRD) using evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Design Umbrella review. Data sources We searched for Epistemonikos, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception to November 2024. Eligibility criteria This included English-language systematic review and meta-analysis assessing advanced therapies in patients with IRD (including congenital retinal dystrophies, retinal dystrophies, retinitis pigmentosa (RP), Stargardt disease, X linked RP, achromatopsia, cone-rod dystrophy, choroideraemia and X linked retinoschisis). Reviews that did not meet the methodological quality threshold were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Findings were synthesised narratively due to the substantial overlap of primary studies. Result Six systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2020 onwards were included, comprising between 6 and 21 primary studies per review. The therapies evaluated included gene therapy, cell-based therapy and stem cell-based interventions. Reported effect estimates showed modest to clinically meaningful improvements in best-corrected visual acuity and retinal structural outcomes in selected IRD subtypes, although effect sizes varied widely across interventions and conditions. The GRADE certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low, reflecting bias, imprecision and heterogeneity risks. Substantial overlap of primary studies was observed (corrected covered area = 28.9%), precluding quantitative pooling across reviews. Conclusion The findings suggest notable improvements in visual acuity, retinal structure and other critical outcomes, with therapies such as cell therapy, gene therapy and stem cell therapy showing promising results in enhancing treatment efficacy. Although there are examples of successes with supportive evidence, the overall evidence is not sufficiently strong to make general recommendations, as studies still need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Further high-quality, large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to better confirm their efficacy and safety.

Purpose: Keratoconus is a progressive corneal ectatic disorder that causes visual impairment, particularly in adolescents and young adults. Evidence on its epidemiology in Latin America and the Caribbean remains limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of keratoconus and evaluate associated factors, including eye rubbing, sex, family history, and allergy history, in the region. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar was conducted on 15 December 2025 for observational studies published up to December 2025. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Pooled prevalence estimates and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model with variance-stabilizing transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and publication bias was explored using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Results: Seven prevalence studies were included in the primary meta-analysis following exclusion of three studies from the previous version of the review, with no additional eligible prevalence studies identified in the updated search. One additional nationwide registry-based study from Colombia was identified but excluded from the primary prevalence synthesis because it reported incidence derived from administrative diagnostic coding rather than clinically assessed prevalence. Among the seven prevalence studies, reported prevalence ranged from 0.50% to 2.88%. The pooled prevalence of keratoconus was 2.07% (95% CI: 1.53–2.79), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71.9%). Subgroup analyses suggested that prevalence estimates varied by study design, with lower estimates observed in community- and school-based studies and higher estimates in clinic-based studies. No statistically significant associations were identified for eye rubbing, sex, family history, or allergy history; however, these analyses should be interpreted cautiously due to small sample sizes, heterogeneous exposure definitions, and wide confidence intervals. Conclusions: Keratoconus prevalence estimates in Latin America and the Caribbean remain variable and should be interpreted cautiously due to substantial heterogeneity, differences in study design, variability in diagnostic criteria, and differences in case ascertainment. The findings highlight important evidence gaps and support the need for well-designed population-based studies using standardized diagnostic criteria to inform screening strategies, early detection, and eye-care planning in the region.

We conducted a retrospective pre-post study to determine the changes in research ethics-related practices that occurred after participation in a training program in the Caribbean. Using online questionnaires, we collected data on bioethics activities of alumni before and following training. Participants also indicated how else they thought the program could produce greater benefits. Of 40 English-speaking alumni, 20 (50%) completed questionnaires. There was greater participation in outreach education activities after the program (55%) compared with before (25%). No significant change was observed in other activities; however, at least half of the graduates served on research ethics committees, engaged in advocacy, or carried out bioethics-related duties in their jobs. Time constraints and insufficient opportunities were cited as reasons for not participating in more activities. Alumni also felt that they would have benefited from practical interventions such as internships. Graduates could contribute more to strengthening bioethics systems in the Caribbean with greater support from key stakeholders.