Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26022921›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2015

Development and Validation of a Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test (Peek Acuity) for Clinical Practice and Community-Based Fieldwork.

Andrew Bastawrous, Hillary K Rono, Iain A T Livingstone, Helen A Weiss, Stewart Jordan, Hannah Kuper, Matthew J Burton

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
190citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
36.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03212222 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

How Does Visual Acuity Assessment Using the Peek Acuity Application Compare to the Standard Exam in the Clinic?

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke UniversityRan2017 to 2017Enrolled111ConditionsVisual ImpairmentArmsPeek Acuity, Standard Visual Screening
NCT04482387 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

DigiVis: Validation of Self-testing Visual Acuity Web-based App to Aid Ophthalmic Telephone Consultations During Covid19 Lockdown and Subsequent Social Distancing Crisis

TypeinterventionalSponsorCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRan2020 to 2021Enrolled120ConditionsVisual Impairment, Amblyopia SuspectArmsDigiVis visual acuity app
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

190 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 336 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. 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) · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

130 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew BastawrousInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, England.
Hillary K RonoKitale Hospital and Zonal Ophthalmologist, North Rift, Kenya.
Iain A T LivingstoneGlasgow Centre for Ophthalmic Research, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
Helen A WeissMRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, LSHTM, London, England.
Stewart JordanInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, England.
Hannah KuperInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, England.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, England.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMRC Epidemiology Unit · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1001934Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust 098481Wellcome Trust 100714Wellcome Trust 98481
6 · The paper itself

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

Cell PhoneCommunity Health WorkersProfessional PracticeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansKenyaMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsVision DisordersVision TestsVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID26022921
PMCPMC5321502
OpenAlexW1620526681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.