Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31043690›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2019

Reliability and diagnostic performance of a novel mobile app for hyperacuity self-monitoring in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Martin K Schmid, Michael A Thiel, Kenny Lienhard, Reinier O Schlingemann, Livia Faes, Lucas M Bachmann

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Telemedicine in ophthalmology.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2025
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Martin K SchmidDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Michael A ThielDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Kenny LienhardOculocare Medical AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Reinier O SchlingemannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Livia FaesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Lucas M BachmannFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. bachmann@oculocare.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9868-154X
University of Lucerne · CHAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the reliability and the diagnostic performance of a novel CE (European Conformity)-marked and FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-cleared dot patient self-monitoring test (Alleye, Oculocare medical Inc.) for the detection and characterization of metamorphopsia in age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

methodsThree consecutive tests were performed in 63 wet AMD, 26 dry AMD, and 19 age-matched healthy eyes. In addition, the test was performed in 34 young healthy eyes. The mean Alleye score and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for each eye and group. We compared and tested healthy with dry and wet AMD eyes and assessed the extent to which the test discriminated between healthy subjects and patients with dry and wet AMD using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsThe mean (SD) Alleye score was 49.5 (16.1) in wet AMD eyes, 62.1 (22.5) in dry AMD eyes, 69.8 (10.2) in age-matched healthy eyes, and 85.3 (10.0) in young healthy subjects. Compared to age-matched healthy subjects, the AUC (95% confidence interval) to detect wet AMD was 0.845 (0.759-0.932), and 0.660 (0.520-0.799) to discriminate between dry and wet AMD. Compared to young healthy subjects, the AUC to detect dry AMD was 0.799 (0.675-0.923), and 0.969 (0.940-0.997) to detect wet AMD.

conclusionsThis is the first assessment of Alleye in clinical practice. The test is highly accurate to detect wet AMD and reasonably accurate to classify dry vs. wet AMD. Data from longitudinal monitoring and its role in the therapeutic management of AMD is warranted.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleGeographic AtrophyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicReproducibility of ResultsSelf CareTomography, Optical CoherenceVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID31043690
PMCPMC7002442
OpenAlexW2943805306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.