Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35439959›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022

Development and validation of a new method for visual acuity assesment on tablet in pediatric population: eMOVA test.

Noémie Stoll, Elsa Di Foggia, Claude Speeg-Schatz, Hélène Meunier, Adam Rimele, Pascal Ancé, Pierre-Henri Moreau, Arnaud Sauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors.

Noémie StollThree borders ophthalmologic center, 76 rue de Battenheim, 68170, Rixheim, France. noemstoll@gmail.com.
Elsa Di FoggiaColmar Civil Hospitals, 39 avenue de la Liberté, 68000, Colmar, France.
Claude Speeg-SchatzUniversity professor, University hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 quai Louis Pasteur, 67000, Strasbourg, France.
Hélène MeunierCognitive and Adaptative Neuroscience Laboratory, Strasbourg University, 67000, Strasbourg, Alsace, France.
Adam RimeleSILABE Platform, Strasbourg University, Fort Foch, 67207, Niederhausbergen, France.
Pascal AncéSILABE Platform, Strasbourg University, Fort Foch, 67207, Niederhausbergen, France.
Pierre-Henri MoreauSILABE Platform, Strasbourg University, Fort Foch, 67207, Niederhausbergen, France.
Arnaud SauerUniversity professor, University hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 quai Louis Pasteur, 67000, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmblyopia is a major public health concern. Its screening and management require reliable methods of visual acuity assessment. New technologies offer nowadays many tests available on different app stores for smartphone or tablet but most of them often lack of scientific validation for a medical use. The aim of our study was to attempt validating a tablet-based near visual acuity test adapted to the pediatric population: the eMOVA test (electronic Measurement Of Visual Acuity) by comparing visual acuity measured with more conventional test.

methodsA cohort of 100 children aged 3 to 8 attending the ophthalmic-pediatric for eye examination between September 2016 and June 2017 were included in the study. Near visual acuity was assessed on participants using both the eMOVA test and a Standard test (Rossano-Weiss test). Duration of each test, its comprehension, its acceptability and the attention of the child during the test was also investigated.

resultsThe eMOVA test overestimated near visual acuity by 0.06 logMAR. This difference, statistically significant, was not clinically relevant. The duration of the eMOVA test was longer than the reference test, but less discomfort and preferred by children and their parents compared to standard tests.

conclusionThe eMOVA test appears as a reliable test to assess near visual acuity in children. By its portability and efficiency, this application proved to be a relevant tool to be used for children eye examination in daily routine at the hospital.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaChildHumansVisual AcuityAmblyopiaChildeMOVA testPediatrics ophthalmologyTabletVisual acuityVisual screening

Identifiers

PMID35439959
PMCPMC9020062

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.