Trial reportSaudi medical journal2022
"Smart Optometry" phone-based application as a visual acuity testing tool among pediatric population.
Trial report in Saudi medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of smartphone technology for detection of paediatric ocular diseases-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of visual function using mobile Apps.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Smart Devices in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives to Clinical Optometry.Clinical optometry · 2024Review
- Teleophthalmology in Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the validity of a smartphone-based application for visual acuity (VA) testing in children and to compare parent and clinician-performed VA to standard VA assessment.
methodsA cohort of 100 children aged <18 years old was recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to either start with conventional distance VA chart screening or the smartphone VA assessment twice by both the clinician and the caregiver if applicable. Near VA scores were assessed using the near vision E chart. Accuracy and reliability values were analyzed.
resultsOne hundred patients with an average age of 9.92 ± 3.0 years old were enrolled. The difference between conventional distance and application logMAR values was -0.023, and the difference between near vision and application logMAR values was -0.004. "Smart Optometry" had a sensitivity of 89.3% in detecting subnormal VA compared with conventional vision testing methods. Sensitivity in detecting subnormal VA was found to be higher in younger age groups up to 91.7% in comparison with the older age groups. The interclass correlation of application-measured VA scores by the caregivers and the clinician were 0.77 (95% CI; 0.67-0.83) using single measures and 0.87 (95%CI; 0.8-0.9) using average measures.
conclusion"Smart Optometry" phone application was found to be an acceptable home-based VA testing tool with good inter-rater reliability for young children showing good sensitivity in detecting subnormal VA, but lower sensitivity in detecting amblyopia.
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.