ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Children's visual acuity tests without professional supervision: a prospective repeated measures study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment on: 'Real-world evaluation of online visual acuity self-testing and remote consultation'.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Practical Comparison of a Newly Developed Software-Based Visual Acuity Test and Photoscreening in Japanese Preschool Children.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome visual acuity tests could ease pressure on ophthalmic services by facilitating remote review of patients. Home tests may have further utility in giving service users frequent updates of vision outcomes during therapy, identifying vision problems in an asymptomatic population, and engaging stakeholders in therapy.
methodsChildren attending outpatient clinics had visual acuity measured 3 times at the same appointment: Once by a registered orthoptist per clinical protocols, once by an orthoptist using a tablet-based visual acuity test (iSight Test Pro, Kay Pictures), and once by an unsupervised parent/carer using the tablet-based test.
resultsIn total, 42 children were recruited to the study. The mean age was 5.6 years (range 3.3 to 9.3 years). Median and interquartile ranges (IQR) for clinical standard, orthoptic-led and parent/carer-led iSight Test Pro visual acuity measurements were 0.155 (0.18 IQR), 0.180 (0.26 IQR), and 0.300 (0.33 IQR) logMAR respectively. The iSight Test Pro in the hands of parents/carers was significantly different from the standard of care measurements (P = 0.008). In the hands of orthoptists. There was no significant difference between orthoptists using the iSight Test Pro and standard of care (P = 0.289), nor between orthoptist iSight Test Pro and parents/carer iSight Test Pro measurements (P = 0.108).
conclusionThis technique of unsupervised visual acuity measures for children is not comparable to clinical measures and is unlikely to be valuable to clinical decision making. Future work should focus on improving the accuracy of the test through better training, equipment/software or supervision/support.
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.