ArticleEye (London, England)2023
System usability, user satisfaction and long-term adherence to mobile hyperacuity home monitoring-prospective follow-up study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- User Satisfaction With Pregnancy Management Apps in Mainland China: User-Generated Content Analysis and Text Mining Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Novel Handheld Device for Remote Monitoring of Dry Macular Degeneration and Patient Usability Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quantification of Metamorphopsia Using a Smartphone-Based Hyperacuity Test in Patients With Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes: Prospective Observational Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Observational
- User-Centred Design and Development of a Smartphone Application (Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity test and application of the Chinese version of the Feeling of Satisfaction with Inhaler.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the usability and long-term adherence to the mobile hyperacuity app Alleye in patients with retinal pathology.
methodsWe enroled 72 patients (95 eyes) mainly treated for wet AMD (48/95; 50.5%). We calculated changes of clinical characteristics and the System Usability Score (SUS), and personal ratings of usefulness and number of tests performed per month at a follow-up visit of eighteen months.
resultsAt baseline, mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 74.9 letters (SD 14.8), mean age was 69.9 (SD 11.4) and 39/72 (54.2%) were female. Of included patients, 47/72 (65.2%) reported to use mobile devices daily. The retention rate until last follow-up was 73.6 % (53/72). The median SUS score at baseline was 90 (interquartile range (IQR) 82.5-95) and 92.5 (IQR 82.5-95) in the follow-up. No association between changes of SUS and clinical characteristics was seen. At baseline, 76.4% (55/72) stated that they would recommend the app to a friend, 83.3% (60/72) were very satisfied with the app and 58/72 (80.6%) of respondents said they trusted the app. These assessments remained similar among patients remaining on the program until the follow-up. Patients who dropped out of the study (n = 19) did not differ in age, gender, BCVA, and SUS at baseline, but stated that they did not use the mobile device daily (Odds Ratio 7.40 (95%CI: 2.32-23.65); p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe majority of users willing to perform home monitoring with the Alleye app are satisfied with the usability and have a positive attitude towards its trustworthiness and usefulness.
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.