Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2022
Validation of Home Visual Acuity Tests for Telehealth in the COVID-19 Era.
Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- A comparative analysis of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examination for visual field, visual acuity, and color vision in neuro-ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Real-world evidence on childhood refractive errors in a developed coastal region of China: a multi-center analysis of 4.47 million school-based screening encounters in Southern Fujian.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Enhancing access and clinical triage in primary eye care through digital vision testing: validation of the SightConnect mobile application.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Ease of Use and Acceptability of an at-Home Vision Screening Kit in a Primarily Non-English Speaking, Underserved Population.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- User-Centred Design and Development of a Smartphone Application (Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Effect of different screen brightness and devices on online visual acuity test.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cataract surgeries in Brazil: A retrospective study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Observational
- Children's visual acuity tests without professional supervision: a prospective repeated measures study.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Surfing the COVID-19 Tsunami with Teleophthalmology: the Advent of New Models of Eye Care.Current ophthalmology reports · 2023Review
- Acuity Comparison Methods via Timed Test-Retest Precision of Matching-Card e-ETDRS Compared to PDI Check in Treated Amblyopes and Superb Normals.Clinical optometry · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Online Visual Acuity Testing of Paediatric Patients.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Digital (Peek) Near Visual Acuity Test for Clinical Practice, Community-Based Survey, and Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of the First Smart TV-Based Visual Acuity Test: A Prospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparing Home- and Clinic-Based Visual Acuity Testing.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Telemedicine in epilepsy and encephalitis: previous research and indication guidelines in Korea.Encephalitis (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Visual acuity (VA) is one of the most important clinical data points in ophthalmology. However, few options for validated at-home VA assessments are currently available. Objective: To validate 3 at-home visual acuity tests in comparison with in-office visual acuity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between July 2020 and April 2021, eligible participants with VA of 20/200 or better were recruited from 4 university-based ophthalmology clinics (comprehensive, cornea, glaucoma, and retina clinics). Participants were prospectively randomized to self-administer 2 of 3 at-home VA tests (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) within 3 days before their standard-of-care clinic visit. Participants completed a survey assessing usability of the at-home tests. At the clinic visit, best-corrected Snellen distance acuity was measured as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The at-home VA test results were compared with the in-office VA test results using paired and unpaired t tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, χ2 tests, and Cohen κ agreement. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each at-home test were calculated to detect significant VA changes (≥0.2 logMAR) from the in-office baseline. Results: A total of 121 participants with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (13.0) years completed the study. The mean in-office VA was 0.11 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/25) with similar numbers of participants from the 4 clinics. Mean difference (logMAR) between the at-home test and in-office acuity was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04) for the printed chart, -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.09) for the mobile phone app, and -0.13 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10) for the website test. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the printed chart was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79), mobile phone app was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.69), and website test was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: The 3 at-home VA test results (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) appeared comparable within 1 line to in-office VA measurements. Older participants were more likely to have limited access to digital tools. Further development and validation of at-home VA testing modalities is needed with the expansion of teleophthalmology care.
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.