ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2015
Development and Validation of a Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test (Peek Acuity) for Clinical Practice and Community-Based Fieldwork.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 190 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
How Does Visual Acuity Assessment Using the Peek Acuity Application Compare to the Standard Exam in the Clinic?
DigiVis: Validation of Self-testing Visual Acuity Web-based App to Aid Ophthalmic Telephone Consultations During Covid19 Lockdown and Subsequent Social Distancing Crisis
Who cites it
190 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 336 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Pooled it
- Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of fluorometholone as adjunctive medical therapy for trachomatous trichiasis surgery (FLAME): a parallel, double-blind, randomised controlled field trial in the Jimma Zone, Ethiopia.The Lancet. Global health · 2026Trial
- Deep learning-empowered low-cost portable automated refraction system: A solution to the inadequate effective correction rate of refractive errors in resource-limited areas.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
- Differentiating stages of functional vision loss from glaucoma using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale and cup:disc ratio.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- "Smart Optometry" phone-based application as a visual acuity testing tool among pediatric population.Saudi medical journal · 2022Trial
- Validation of Home Visual Acuity Tests for Telehealth in the COVID-19 Era.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Topical Chlorhexidine 0.2% versus Topical Natamycin 5% for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis in Nepal: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.Ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus 0·5% timolol eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma in Tanzania: a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Trial
- Effectiveness of an mHealth system on access to eye health services in Kenya: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Digital health · 2021Trial
- Smartphone-based screening for visual impairment in Kenyan school children: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2018Trial
- Oral doxycycline for the prevention of postoperative trachomatous trichiasis in Ethiopia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2018Trial
- Predictors of Trachomatous Trichiasis Surgery Outcome.Ophthalmology · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Posterior lamellar versus bilamellar tarsal rotation surgery for trachomatous trichiasis in Ethiopia: a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2016Trial
- Late Life Learning, Cognition, and Aging: A Longitudinal study of middle and older-aged adults in Beirut, Lebanon (3LC study).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Real-world evaluation of online visual acuity self-testing and remote consultation: three years of implementation experience in a paediatric ophthalmology service.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Task-shifting in eye health: Assessing the accuracy and feasibility of community worker-led vision screening. MEDiS report # 2.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
130 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
importanceVisual acuity is the most frequently performed measure of visual function in clinical practice and most people worldwide living with visual impairment are living in low- and middle-income countries.
objectiveTo design and validate a smartphone-based visual acuity test that is not dependent on familiarity with symbols or letters commonly used in the English language. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsValidation study conducted from December 11, 2013, to March 4, 2014, comparing results from smartphone-based Peek Acuity to Snellen acuity (clinical normal) charts and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) logMAR chart (reference standard). This study was nested within the 6-year follow-up of the Nakuru Eye Disease Cohort in central Kenya and included 300 adults aged 55 years and older recruited consecutively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcome measures were monocular logMAR visual acuity scores for each test: ETDRS chart logMAR, Snellen acuity, and Peek Acuity. Peek Acuity was compared, in terms of test-retest variability and measurement time, with the Snellen acuity and ETDRS logMAR charts in participants' homes and temporary clinic settings in rural Kenya in 2013 and 2014.
resultsThe 95% CI limits for test-retest variability of smartphone acuity data were ±0.033 logMAR. The mean differences between the smartphone-based test and the ETDRS chart and the smartphone-based test and Snellen acuity data were 0.07 (95% CI, 0.05-0.09) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.10) logMAR, respectively, indicating that smartphone-based test acuities agreed well with those of the ETDRS and Snellen charts. The agreement of Peek Acuity and the ETDRS chart was greater than the Snellen chart with the ETDRS chart (95% CI, 0.05-0.10; P = .08). The local Kenyan community health care workers readily accepted the Peek Acuity smartphone test; it required minimal training and took no longer than the Snellen test (77 seconds vs 82 seconds; 95% CI, 71-84 seconds vs 73-91 seconds, respectively; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study demonstrated that the Peek Acuity smartphone test is capable of accurate and repeatable acuity measurements consistent with published data on the test-retest variability of acuities measured using 5-letter-per-line retroilluminated logMAR charts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.