ArticleScientific reports2022
Validation of a novel iPhone application for evaluating near functional visual acuity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Smart Devices in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives to Clinical Optometry.Clinical optometry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring dynamic changes in near vision is important for early detection of presbyopia. This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of a new smartphone-based application, the Smart Vision Check (SVC), compared with those of a conventional device (AS-28; Kowa, Aichi, Japan), for measuring near functional visual acuity (NFVA). We enrolled 115 healthy volunteers aged ≥ 20 years with bilateral best-corrected visual acuity of ≥ 20/25. The SVC was designed for use on an Apple iPhone SE2 to measure NFVA by tapping on the orientation icon manually. Conventional FVA was measured using the AS-28 with - 2.50 D added to the best distance correction at baseline. There was no significant difference in NFVA-related measurements between the AS-28 and SVC (P > 0.05). The Spearman correlation coefficients of NFVA measurements between the two devices were over 0.60 (P < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot indicated minimal bias with limits of agreements of ± 0.34 logMAR for NFVA with habitual correction when comparing the AS-28 and SVC. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the repeated SVC-measured NFVA was 0.915 (95% CI 0.800-0.969). In summary, the SVC has the potential to evaluate NFVA in a relatively easy manner. Applied clinically, the SVC can be useful for presbyopia screening.
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.