Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37347757›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials.

Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Refaat Hassan, Aaron Limonard, Shalom Vitreous Savant

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A comparative analysis of an AI-assisted virtual reality platform with technician-based examination for visual field, visual acuity, and color vision in neuro-ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arun James ThirunavukarasuSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Camybridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8968-4768
Refaat HassanSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Camybridge, United Kingdom.
Aaron LimonardSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Camybridge, United Kingdom.
Shalom Vitreous SavantSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Camybridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8464-5708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote self-administered visual acuity (VA) tests have the potential to allow patients and non-specialists to assess vision without eye health professional input. Validation in pragmatic trials is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of tests in relevant settings to justify deployment. Here, published pragmatic trials of these tests were synthesised to summarise the effectiveness of available options and appraise the quality of their supporting evidence.

methodsA systematic review was undertaken in accordance with a preregistered protocol (CRD42022385045). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched. Screening was conducted according to the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted out of eye clinic; (4) no clinical administration of remote test; (5) accuracy or reliability of remote test analysed. There were no restrictions on trial participants. Quality assessment was conducted with QUADAS-2.

resultsOf 1227 identified reports, 10 studies were ultimately included. One study was at high risk of bias and two studies exhibited concerning features of bias; all studies were applicable. Three trials-of DigiVis, iSight Professional, and Peek Acuity-from two studies suggested that accuracy of the remote tests is comparable to clinical assessment. All other trials exhibited inferior accuracy, including conflicting results from a pooled study of iSight Professional and Peek Acuity. Two studies evaluated test-retest agreement-one trial provided evidence that DigiVis is as reliable as clinical assessment. The three most accurate tests required access to digital devices. Reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete, particularly with regards to describing methods and conducting statistical analysis.

conclusionsRemote self-administered VA tests appear promising, but further pragmatic trials are indicated to justify deployment in carefully defined contexts to facilitate patient or non-specialist led assessment. Deployment could augment teleophthalmology, non-specialist eye assessment, pre-consultation triage, and autonomous long-term monitoring of vision.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyTelemedicineBenzophenonesHumansPolymersReproducibility of ResultsVisual AcuityBenzophenonespolyetheretherketonePolymers

Identifiers

PMID37347757
PMCPMC10286971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.