Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35479836›Full record

ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2022

The Effect of Test Method on Visual Acuity in School Children Aged 4-5.

Rebecca Lewis, Charlotte Codina, Helen Griffiths

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Discrimination of paediatric acuity test optotypes by 6-year-old children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023
    Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca LewisLeeds Teaching Hospitals, GB.
Charlotte CodinaThe University Of Sheffield, GB.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0094-3052
Helen GriffithsSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, GB.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4286-5371
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared two different methods of testing visual acuity (VA) in children aged 4-5 years (The UK's school vision screening target age). A conventional vision test method was compared to a reversed presentation order of logMAR, where letters are presented in ascending size order up to vision threshold. Threshold VA, test duration and concentration were compared, to assess the most accurate and efficient method of VA testing in this age group, to determine the most clinically and cost-effective method for vision screening. Methods: Thirty-four participants completed the study (15 males, 19 females, age range 53-65 months, mean age 59 months' ±3.7 months). VA was measured in logMAR. Keeler Crowded logMAR screening plates determined the starting line on the vision chart to ensure the initial optotype size was either seen or not seen for the conventional and reversed test methods respectively. Test duration was measured in seconds and a concentration score was given by the examiner. Results: The median VA was 0.17 logMAR for each test method. There was no significant difference in the VA outcomes between each test method (p = 0.46). The reversed method was significantly quicker to complete, with a median reduction in test duration of 28 seconds (p = 0.002). There was no difference in concentration levels between the test methods. Conclusion: Both test methods gave the same VA threshold, and are therefore comparable. The reversed method was significantly quicker to complete which could benefit school vision screening services and busy clinical contexts.

Indexed as

Children’s visual acuitycrowded logMARvision test method

Identifiers

PMID35479836
PMCPMC8992771
OpenAlexW4226297171

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.