Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37606825›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Effect of different screen brightness and devices on online visual acuity test.

Lu Cheng, Shi Peng, Hua Hao, Dan Ye, Liya Xu, Yajing Zuo, Jingjing Huang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Immediate Effects of Light Mode and Dark Mode Features on Visual Fatigue in Tablet Users.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
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

7 authors.

Lu ChengState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Sun Yat-Sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Guangzhou, 510060, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6051-8782
Shi PengState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Sun Yat-Sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Hua HaoEnvironmental Health Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dan YeState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Sun Yat-Sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Liya XuDepartment of Biology, School of Arts and Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA.
Yajing ZuoState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Sun Yat-Sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Guangzhou, 510060, China. gzbali@163.com.
Jingjing HuangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Sun Yat-Sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Guangzhou, 510060, China. hjjing@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3009-8681

Funding

Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Project 202201020268Health and Family Planning Commission of Guangdong Province C2021044National Natural Science Foundation of China 82271081Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2022A1515010302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to study the difference in test results of online visual acuity (VA) test under different devices and screen brightness conditions and to compare online VA test with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS).

methodsHealthy volunteers with the best corrected VA of 0.0 LogMAR or higher were recruited. VAs under ETDRS were tested first, and then online VA test (the Stanford Acuity Test, StAT) visual acuities using iPad Air2 and Microsoft Surface pro4 under 50% and 100% screen brightness were performed. The VA results and the testing times were compared between different devices and screen brightness conditions.

resultsA total of 101 eyes were included in this study. The VA results measured by the StAT were better than those of ETDRS. The VA results measured at 100% screen brightness were better than those of 50% brightness (mean difference, 0.013 logMAR at most, less than 1 letter); the VA results measured by iPad Air2 were better than those of Surface pro4 (mean difference, -0.009 logMAR at most, less than 1 letter). Significantly less time was spent on VA testing under StAT than that under ETDRS.

conclusionThe impact of screen brightness and the device on the VA results generated by online VA tests was clinically insignificant. In addition, online VA tests are found to be reliable and more time efficient than ETDRS.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyVision TestsEyeHealthy VolunteersHumansReproducibility of ResultsVisual AcuityHome health monitoringOnline visual acuity testTelehealthTele-ophthalmologyVisual acuity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.