Table 1: Demographic and Clinical profile of Study Population (n=41)

Table 2: Risk Factors of study populations (n=41)

Variable	Dry ARMD (% )n= 22	Wet ARMD(%) n=19
Visual Acuity (Only after Refractive correction)
Mild or No Visual Impairment(6/6-6/18)	20 (48.80%)	7 (18.20%)
Moderate Visual Impairment (6/24-6/60)	2 (4.90%)	12 (28.10%)
Rerfractive error
Simple Hyperopia	16 (39.00%)	8 (19.50%)
Compound Hyperopic Astigmatism	6 (14.60%)	7 (17.10)
Mixed Astigmatism	-	2 (4.90%)
Emetropia	-	1 (2.40%)
Simple Myopia	-	1 (2.40%)
Contrast Sensitivity Acuity
(0.00-0.40 LogMAR)	7 (17.10%)	2 (4.90%)
(0.50-0.70 LogMAR)	13 (31.70%)	7 (17.10%)
No Response	2 (4.90%)	10 (24.40%)
Colour Vision
Normal	10 (24.40%)	2 (4.90%)
Protan	-	-
Deutran	3 (7.30%)	5 (12.20%)
Tritan	9 (22.00%)	12 (29.30%)

Table 3: Ocular status of ARMD Patients (n=41)

Range of Near VA (N Notation)	Unaided VA at Near	Near VA After Near Device Trial	P Value
N8	-	3(33.30)	P = 0.000
N10	3(33.30)	1(11.11%)
N12	1(11.11%)	-

Table 4: Baseline characteristics of patients with ARMD attending Low Vision Clinic (n=9)

Variable	Categories	Frequency(%)
Types of ARMD	Dry ARMD	2(22.22)%
	Wet ARMD	7(77.77%)
Low vision Optical Device (Distance)	Spectacle	9((100%)
Low vision Optical Device (Near)	4x Hand-held magnifier	1(11.11%)
	6 pd BI Prism	3(33.33%)
Low vision Non- Optical Device	Bright indirect illumination	1(11.11%)
	Bright indirect illumination+Torch light + Large print Holy Quran	5(55.55%)
	Torch light + sighted guide+ bright indirect illumination	1(11.11%)
	Large print Holy Quran + Bright indirect illuminaton + Torch light additional Sighted guide for orientation mobility	2(22.22%)

Table 5: Improvement of near VA after near device trial

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5