ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Remote Monitoring of Visual Function in Patients with Maculopathy: The Aphelion Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Handheld Device for Remote Monitoring of Dry Macular Degeneration and Patient Usability Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Remote web-based self-assessment of visual acuity versus ETDRS in patients with macular diseases: a method comparison study.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- [Digital remote monitoring of chronic retinal conditions-A clinical future tool? : Remote monitoring of chronic retinal conditions].Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRemote monitoring of vision, using tools such as the shape discrimination hyperacuity (SDH) test, can detect disease activity in patients with maculopathy. We determined the in-clinic accuracy and repeatability of three myVisionTrack expanded version (mVTx) tests for self-testing of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity.
methodsAphelion, a single-arm, prospective study conducted at two sites in the USA, included adults with any maculopathy and a baseline VA of 0.7 log of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (Snellen 20/100) or better. Participants completed the mVTx tests (tumbling E, Landolt C, contrast sensitivity, and SDH) and standard clinical tests (near and distance Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] charts and the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart). Test-retest repeatability and agreement between the mVTx tests and the corresponding clinical test were assessed by Bland-Altman analyses. Participants also completed a usability survey.
resultsThe mean age of the 122 participants was 67 years. The most common diagnosis was age-related macular degeneration (42% of patients). The tumbling E test had a test-retest 95% limit of agreement (LoA) of ± 0.18 logMAR; the Landolt C test, ± 0.23 logMAR; the SDH test, ± 0.24 logMAR; and the contrast sensitivity test, ± 0.32 log contrast threshold (logCT). Compared with the distance ETDRS chart, the LoA was ± 0.35 logMAR for the tumbling E test (mean difference, - 0.07 logMAR) and ± 0.39 logMAR for the Landolt C test (mean difference, 0.03 logMAR). For the contrast sensitivity test, the LoA compared with the Pelli-Robson chart was ± 0.30 logCT (mean difference, - 0.25 logCT). Most participants (85%) reported that they learned the tests quickly. The tumbling E test scored the highest on ease of use.
conclusionThe mVTx tests of VA are accurate and repeatable, supporting their potential use alongside the SDH test to detect disease progression remotely between clinic visits.
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.