SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022
Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of smartphone technology for detection of paediatric ocular diseases-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Vision screening of Greenlandic children evaluating efficacy, coverage and future directions.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Visual Acuity Testing System.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of best corrected visual acuity estimates between a custom-made digital chart and the ETDRS chart.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Screening for Refractive Errors Among Nursing Students Using the WHOeyes Application in Shivamogga City.Cureus · 2025Article
- Prevalence and associated risk factors of visual impairment in school children: mHealth-based vision screening in government schools of Rawalpindi, Pakistan.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Mobile Apps and Visual Function Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of the Latest Advancements.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence technology in ophthalmology public health: current applications and future directions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- The Prevalence of Ophthalmic Diagnoses and Exam Findings in Emergency Department Consults at Two Academic Hospitals.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Development and performance evaluation of a Bengali-adapted mHealth app for early detection of impaired visual acuity.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Web-based vs. conventional: a comprehensive analysis of visual acuity assessment using the PocDoc tool in a tertiary eye care centre.Eye (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Assessment of Eye Care Apps for Children and Adolescents Based on the Mobile App Rating Scale: Content Analysis and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a Digital Amsler Grid (PocDoc) for Macular Disease Screening: A Comparative Analysis with the Conventional Method.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Smart Devices in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives to Clinical Optometry.Clinical optometry · 2024Review
- Inter-Rater Reliability of EyeSpy Mobile for Pediatric Visual Acuity Assessments by Parent Volunteers.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Validity and Reliability of Vis-Screen Application: A Smartphone-Based Distance Vision Testing for Visual Impairment and Blindness Vision Screening.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In recent years, there has been increasing research on mobile app-based VA assessment designed to allow people to test their VA at any time and any location.
objectiveThe goal of the review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of using mobile VA measurement apps.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles on mobile apps for VA assessment published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2020. Two researchers independently inspected and selected relevant studies. Eventually, we included 22 studies that assessed tablet or smartphone apps for VA measurement. We then analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the 6 papers we found through a meta-analysis.
resultsMost of the 22 selected studies can be considered of high quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. In a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving 24,284 participants, we categorized the studies based on the age groups of the study participants (ie, aged 3-5 years, aged 6-22 years, and aged 55 years and older), examiner (ie, professional and nonprofessional examiners), and the type of mobile devices (ie, smartphone, iPad). In the group aged 3 to 5 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93; P=.39), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; P=.37). In the group aged 6 to 22 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87; P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91; P=.27). In the group aged 55 years and older, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55-0.98), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). We found that the nonprofessional examiner group (AUC 0.93) had higher accuracy than the professional examiner group (AUC 0.87). In the iPad-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86, and the pooled specificity was 0.79. In the smartphone-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (P<.001).
conclusionsIn this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the research on existing mobile apps for VA tests to investigate their diagnostic value and limitations. Evidence gained from this study suggests that mobile app-based VA tests can be useful for on-demand VI detection.
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.