ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2023
Diagnostic Accuracy of Online Visual Acuity Testing of Paediatric Patients.
Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2023. 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.
- Real-world evaluation of online visual acuity self-testing and remote consultation: three years of implementation experience in a paediatric ophthalmology service.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Remote assessment of children's visual acuity became necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess the extent of agreement between hospital-based clinical testing and clinician-led home-based testing. Subjects/Methods: 50 children aged 2-16 (median 8) years attending hospital eye services at two UK hospitals had routine hospital-based acuities compared with subsequent online, orthoptist-supervised home visual acuities. Agreement was assessed using intra-class correlation and Bland-Altman plots, as was test-retest (TRT) agreement of two, repeated home acuity tests. Results: Monocular acuities tested at hospital and at home were obtained from all 50 children; 33 also had binocular acuities in both settings and 35 had acuities retested immediately at home. Most children were tested at home using a computer or tablet; two were tested with a smartphone. No mean test differences were found for hospital vs home testing (-0.004 (95% CI -0.06-0.05) and -0.008 (95% CI -0.04-0.03) for binocular and monocular testing, respectively). Limits of agreement (LOAs) were ±0.32 and ±0.35 logMAR for binocular and monocular testing, respectively. LOAs for inter-ocular acuity differences (hospital vs home) were -0.15-0.25 logMAR. TRT monocular acuity agreement was excellent, with an LOA of ±0.14 logMAR. Conclusions: We found good (binocular) and excellent (monocular) agreement between hospital and home acuity testing. LOAs were in keeping with multiple changes between measures (test; setting; time; tester) and a cohort including patients as young as two years old. Even smartphone testing proved feasible. Inability of the supervising orthoptist to check test distance or device calibration/orientation was a limitation, likely contributing to the breadth of LOAs. Home vision testing is feasible and accurate, but its precision, acceptability, health economic impact and carbon impact require more attention.
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.