ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Development and Validation of a Web-Based Reading Test for Normal and Low Vision Patients.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Introduction of an Internet-based Near and Intermediate-vision Reading Test for Greek-speaking Normal and Low Vision Adults (wDDART): Development and Validation.
Evaluation of the Impact of Light Intensity and Light Temperature on the Efficacy of Presbyopic Corrections With Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in a Series of Activities of Daily Living
Validation of DDIVAT Digital Optotypes for Distance Visual Acuity Testing Among the Bulgarian Population
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting the Visual Acuity Curves. A Proposed Methodology for the Evaluation of Postoperative Visual Acuity in Presbyopia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Impact of Light Conditions on Visual Performance following Premium Pseudophakic Presbyopia Corrections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the First Smart TV-Based Visual Acuity Test: A Prospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Standardization of distance visual acuity measurement using optonet computerized vision charts: A multicentric study.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a web-based reading test for normal and low vision patients.
methodsThis is a prospective, comparative trial. The web-based Democritus Digital Acuity Reading Test (wDDART) was developed. wDDART introduces a series of advanced characteristics (advanced text calibration, computer-vision-based estimation of patient's distance, and automatic calculation of patient's reading times) that facilitate the overall examination procedure. wDDART's reading parameters [reading acuity (RA), maximum reading speed (MRS), critical print size (CPS) and reading accessibility index (ACC)] were compared to the corresponding ones of its conventional Windows-based reading test (DDART) in a sample of normal and low vision participants. wDDART's test-retest reliability for all reading parameters was evaluated in a 15-day time-window.
resultsOne hundred patients (normal vision group-NVG: 70; low vision group-LVG: 30 patients) responded to DDART and wDDART. Non-significant differences between the two reading tests were found for all parameters in NVG and LVG. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the two tests demonstrated good or excellent correlation for RA, MRS, ACC and moderate correlation for CPS. Test-retest reliability was excellent for RA and ACC, while ICCs were 0.715-0.895 for MRS and CPS.
conclusionThe wDDART demonstrated sufficient validity and repeatability making it suitable for clinical and research settings. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04618224.
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.