ArticleBMJ open2021
Visual outcomes and treatment adherence of patients with macular pathology using a mobile hyperacuity home-monitoring app: a matched-pair analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usability Evaluation of a Macular Quantitative Square Grid Self-Examination Application in Patients With Macular Disease: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Telemedicine in ophthalmology.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2025Review
- Quantification of Metamorphopsia Using a Smartphone-Based Hyperacuity Test in Patients With Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes: Prospective Observational Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Observational
- [Digital remote monitoring of chronic retinal conditions-A clinical future tool? : Remote monitoring of chronic retinal conditions].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Digital Exclusion, Social Deprivation, and Clinical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Hyperacuity Home Monitoring.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Teleophthalmology and retina: a review of current tools, pathways and services.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Review
- Transforming ophthalmology in the digital century-new care models with added value for patients.Eye (London, England) · 2023Review
- Examining the Role of Telemedicine in Diabetic Retinopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Perspectives on the Home Monitoring of Macular Disease.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Digital innovations for retinal care in diabetic retinopathy.Acta diabetologica · 2022Review
- Real-Life Value of the OdysightJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility of Smartphone Applications in Ophthalmology: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and other macular pathologies testing their vision with the hyperacuity home-monitoring app Alleye to patients not performing home-monitoring regarding clinical outcomes and clinical management.
designMatched-pair analysis.
settingRetina Referral Centre, Switzerland.
participantsFor each eye using Alleye, we matched 2-4 controls not using home-monitoring based on age, gender, number of previous intravitreal injections (IVI), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters), central macular thickness (CRT) and time point of enrolment, using the Mahalanobis distance matching algorithm. We included 514 eyes (288 patients); 107 eyes with nvAMD using home monitoring and 218 controls not using home monitoring, 25 eyes with DMO (n=52 controls) and 40 eyes with miscellaneous conditions (n=72 controls). 173 eyes (33.7%) received no IVI during follow-up.
main outcome measuresImprovement of ≥5 letters, number of injection visits and treatment retention after correcting for differences in baseline characteristics with multivariate analyses.
resultsThe mean follow-up duration was 809 days (range 147-1353) and the mean number of IVI/year among treated eyes was 6.7 (SD 3.1). Mean age at baseline was 70.4 years (SD 10.9), BCVA was 77.6 letters (SD 11.6) and CRT was 263.6 µm (SD 86.7) and was similar between patients using and not using home monitoring. In multivariate analyses, patients using home monitoring had a higher chance to improve visual acuity by ≥5 letters (OR 1.67 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.76; p=0.044)) than controls. Treated eyes using home monitoring had less injection visits/year (-0.99 (95% CI -1.59 to -0.40; p=0.001)) and a longer treatment retention +69.2 days (95% CI 2.4 to 136.0; p=0.042). These effects were similar across retinal pathologies.
conclusionsThis data suggest that patients capable of performing mobile hyperacuity home monitoring benefit in terms of visual acuity and discontinue treatment less often than patients not using home monitoring.
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.