ArticleClinical optometry2023
Acuity Comparison Methods via Timed Test-Retest Precision of Matching-Card e-ETDRS Compared to PDI Check in Treated Amblyopes and Superb Normals.
Article in Clinical optometry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of the Affordable, Portable International Visionkeys System for Visual Acuity and Stereopsis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Existing and emerging visual acuity methods like dynamic and dichoptic presentation, preferential looking and eye tracking promise to afford better and earlier assessment in children with and without amblyopia so we propose methods needed to easily evaluate and compare their metrics. Subjects and Methods: Patients older than 8 years with treated amblyopia and superb vision (logMAR -0.1 to -0.3) normals performed timed, patched eETDRS with Sloan matching card at 3.00 m and PDI Check dichoptic near rivalry dynamic test to demonstrate test re-Test and compared disparate acuity with intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) to generate a simple method of qualifying acuity test matching. Results: 26 amblyopic patients and 11 superb-vision normals performed eETDRS retest, PDI Check retest and combined ICC of 0.98, 0.60 and 0.27, respectively, and Bland Altman LOA of 0.24, 2.06 and 2.28 logMAR. The time to test one eye with eETDRS had median (interquartile range; IQR) duration of 280 (205 to 346) seconds, while the PDI Check autostereoscopic dichoptic for both eyes only took 39 (30 to 47) seconds. Optimum ICC and LOA for visual acuity comparison should be >0.95 and <0.3 logMAR, whereas "good" ICC and should be 0.75-0.89 ICC and 1.0-1.49 logMAR LOA. Conclusion: Superb vision subjects (logMAR < -0.1) and treated amblyopic patients confirmed optimum comparable eETDRS, and fair test re-Test PDI Check but suppression on near dichoptic testing confirmed disparity compared to optimized eETDRS distance acuity.
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.