ReviewInternational journal of ophthalmology2023
A systematic review of reading tests.
Review in International journal of ophthalmology, 2023. 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.
- Using meta-analysis and CNN-NLP to review and classify the medical literature for normal tissue complication probability in head and neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Fixation Stability as a Surrogate for Reading Abilities in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a Case Management Intervention Combined with Physical Exercise Compared to Physical Exercise Alone in Older People with High Risk of Falls: A Protocol Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Content assessment and readability of online injury prevention resources on firearm safety: a cross-sectional analysis of hospital and national injury prevention literature.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Bridging the literacy gap for surgical consents: an AI-human expert collaborative approach.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequate near and intermediate visual capacity is important in performing everyday tasks, especially after the introduction of smartphones and computers in our professional and recreational activities. Primary objective of this study was to review all available reading tests both conventional and digital and explore their integrated characteristics. A systematic review of the recent literature regarding reading charts was performed based on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Springer databases between February and March 2021. Data from 11 descriptive and 24 comparative studies were included in the present systematic review. Clinical settings are still dominated by conventional printed reading charts; however, the most prevalent of them (
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.