Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842847›Full record

ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Validation of Digital Applications for Evaluation of Visual Parameters: A Narrative Review.

Kevin J Mena-Guevara, David P Piñero, Dolores de Fez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Validity and Reliability of WHOeyes Application in Community-based Visual Acuity Screening Program.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Kevin J Mena-GuevaraGroup of Optics and Visual Perception, Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2204-4154
David P PiñeroGroup of Optics and Visual Perception, Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1546-4807
Dolores de FezGroup of Optics and Visual Perception, Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4404-8236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current review aimed to collect and critically analyze the scientific peer-reviewed literature that is available about the use of digital applications for evaluation of visual parameters in electronic devices (tablets and smartphones), confirming if there are studies calibrating and validating each of these applications. Three bibliographic search engines (using the search equation described in the paper) and the Mendeley reference manager search engine were used to complete the analysis. Only articles written in English and that are evaluating the use of tests in healthy patients to measure or characterize any visual function aspects using tablets or smartphones were included. Articles using electronic visual tests to assess the results of surgical procedures or are conducted in pathological conditions were excluded. A total of 19 articles meeting these inclusion and exclusion criteria were finally analyzed. One critical point of all these studies is that there was no mention of the characterization (spatial and/or colorimetrical) of screens and the stimuli used in most of them. Only two studies described some level of calibration of the digital device before the beginning of the study. Most revised articles described non-controlled comparatives studies (73.7%), reporting some level of scientific evidence on the validation of tools, although more consistent studies are needed.

Indexed as

appcontrast sensitivityelectronic devicetabletvisual acuityvisual function

Identifiers

PMID34842847
PMCPMC8628957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.