ArticleOphthalmology science2021
Validation of a Standardized Home Visual Acuity Test for Teleophthalmology.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Validation of Home Visual Acuity Tests for Telehealth in the COVID-19 Era.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Current perspectives in tackling glaucoma blindness.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Development and Evaluation of a New Self-Administered Near Visual Acuity Chart: Accuracy and Feasibility of Usage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparing Home- and Clinic-Based Visual Acuity Testing.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Why Ophthalmology Science?Ophthalmology science · 2021Article
- Comparing a Home Vision Self-Assessment Test to Office-Based Snellen Visual Acuity.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The recent exponential growth in teleophthalmology has been limited in part by the lack of a validated method to measure visual acuity (VA) remotely. We investigated the validity of a self-administered Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) home VA test. We hypothesized that a home VA test with a printout ETDRS chart is equivalent to a standard technician-administered VA test in clinic. Design: Prospective cohort study. Participants: Two hundred nine eyes from 108 patients who had a scheduled in-person outpatient ophthalmology clinic visit at an academic medical center. Methods: Enrolled patients were sent a .pdf document consisting of instructions and a printout ETDRS vision chart calibrated for 5 feet. Patients completed the VA test at home before the in-person appointment, where their VA was measured by an ophthalmic technician using a standard ETDRS chart. Survey questions about the ease of testing and barriers to completion were administered. For the bioequivalence test with a 5% nominal level, the 2 1-sided tests procedure was used, and an equivalent 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed and compared with the prespecified 7-letter equivalence margin. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the mean adjusted letter score difference between the home and clinic tests. Secondary outcomes included the unadjusted letter difference, absolute letter difference, and survey question responses. Results: The mean adjusted VA letter score difference was 4.1 letters (90% CI, 3.2-4.9 letters), well within the 7-letter equivalence margin. Average unadjusted VA scores in clinic were 3.9 letters (90% CI, 3.1-4.7 letters) more than scores at home. The absolute difference was 5.2 letters (90% CI, 4.6-5.9 letters). Ninety-eight percent of patients agreed that the home test was easy to perform. Conclusions: An ETDRS VA test self-administered at home following a standardized protocol was equivalent to a standard technician-administered VA test in clinic in the examined population.
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.