ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2018
Validation of Peek Acuity application in pediatric screening programs in Paraguay.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 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
- Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- "Smart Optometry" phone-based application as a visual acuity testing tool among pediatric population.Saudi medical journal · 2022Trial
- Assessment of Visual Acuity and Stereopsis in Older Adults: A Comparison Between a Screening Application and Clinical Standards-A Feasibility Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Development and performance evaluation of a Bengali-adapted mHealth app for early detection of impaired visual acuity.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Assessment of visual function using mobile Apps.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- The Accuracy of a Web-Based Visual Acuity Self-assessment Tool Performed Independently by Eye Care Patients at Home: Method Comparison Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Feasibility study for measuring patients' visual acuity at home by their caregivers.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility of 'Peekaboo Vision' Application for Measuring Grating Acuity in Children with Down Syndrome.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2022Article
- Digital Tools for the Self-Assessment of Visual Acuity: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2021Review
- Teleophthalmology: Evaluation of Phone-based Visual Acuity in a Pediatric Population.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- A new visual acuity test on touchpad for vision screening in children.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Clinical Utility of Smartphone Applications in Ophthalmology: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
- Ease and Willingness to Use Smartphone Applications for Visual Acuity Assessment Among Patients in Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo validate the Peek Acuity mobile phone application in pediatric populations and compare its utility, both economic and diagnostic, against conventional screening methods using a pediatric ophthalmologist examination as the gold standard.
methodsA cohort of 393 subjects from Fernando de la Mora, Paraguay (ages 6-16y) were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned a starting screening modality among: Peek Acuity, a single line of tumbling E optotypes set at 20/40, and Spot Vision Screener. Once completing the first screening modality, the subjects completed the two remaining techniques. Referral criteria were established based on the most current American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) recommendations: 20/40 for Peek Acuity and the tumbling E, and refractive error detection for the Spot Vision Screener. Subjects that failed to achieve the cut-off for any of the three screening techniques or subjects that passed the screening but were randomly selected to perform a comprehensive eye exam to determine the false negative rate, were evaluated by a pediatric ophthalmologist. This evaluation was considered the gold standard, and included vision assessment by a Snellen chart, strabismus evaluation, and cycloplegic refraction with dilated fundoscopy.
resultsWe obtained 48% sensitivity, 83% specificity, 43% positive predictive value, and 86% negative predictive value for Peek Acuity's ability to refer compared to evaluation by a pediatric ophthalmologist, failing to achieve a desired sensitivity for implementation. Peek Acuity trended to overestimate the subject's visual acuity, providing a higher visual acuity that would not indicate referral for a comprehensive eye examination. However, its high specificity accurately predicted a significant number of children who did not need further evaluation. When comparing the three screening methods, no single screening modality outperformed the others. Peek Acuity represented a technology that was economically feasible compared to other screening modalities in low income settings, due to the prevalence of cell phone use.
conclusionPeek Acuity represents an efficient tool that has potential for implementation in school screenings with different strategies aimed at pediatric populations due to its low cost and high specificity. An increase in sensitivity would improve detection of children with refractive errors.
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.