ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Rapid, accurate, multifunctional and self-assisted vision assessment and screening with interactive desktop autostereoscopy.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel clinical dynamic stereopsis assessment based on autostereoscopic display system.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop an interactive vision screening tool based on desktop autostereoscopy and evaluate its feasibility for testing visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision and binocular balance clinically.
methodsAn interactive desktop autostereoscopy vision test was developed making it remarkably convenient for individuals to undergo multiple visual function assessments in a single test. With this rapid screening process, an individual's visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision and binocular balance can be assessed within several minutes. A total of 155 healthy subjects were enrolled to compare the clinical repeatability, accuracy, inter-visit variability, likeability and efficiency between the autostereoscopy and traditional method.
resultsIn the repeatability test, the visual acuity measured with autostereoscopy was 0.045±0.018 and 0.035±0.018 (P=0.702) for the first and second tests, respectively. The mean logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) visual acuities measured with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (EDTRS) chart and autostereoscopy test were 0.04±0.02 and 0.05±0.02, respectively, which were not significantly different (P=0.849). The correlation between these two kinds of tests was statistically significant (Spearman correlation coefficient =0.829, P<0.001). The results for colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision are presented, and the effectiveness of the autostereoscopic method is supported with qualitative data comparing its results with those of the traditional methods. In the likeability test, the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test had scores of 2.21±0.53 and 3.04±0.07, while the traditional and autostereoscopy tests for colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision had scores of 2.02±0.59 and 3.36±0.93, respectively (P<0.001). Regarding visual fatigue, the mean scores were 0.69±0.04 and 0.42±0.04 (P<0.001) with the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test, respectively. Regarding work efficiency, the average testing times per person was 59.65±0.66 and 48.92±0.86 s (P<0.001) with the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test, respectively.
conclusionsThe autostereoscopy test was conclusively shown to be valid, efficient and repeatable for the measurement of visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision, and the process was subjectively well-liked and comfortable.
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.