ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2024
Comparison of Eye Tracking and Teller Acuity Cards for Visual Acuity Assessment in Pediatric Cortical/Cerebral Visual Impairment.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vision In SyndrOmic Neurodevelopmental disorders-15q (VISiON-15q) study: eye tracking to supplement clinical examination for detection of cerebral/cortical visual impairment in children with Angelman and Duplication of 15q Syndromes.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Special Commentary: Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment Working Definition: A Report from the National Institutes of Health CVI Workshop.Ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Method for assessing visual saliency in children with cerebral/cortical visual impairment using generative artificial intelligence.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment Classification and Categorization Using Eye Tracking Measures of Oculomotor Function.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare eye tracking and Teller acuity cards (TAC) for assessment of visual acuity in children with cortical, or cerebral, visual impairment (CVI).
designReliability and validity study.
methodsWe recruited 41 children with CVI from a single academic pediatric neuro-ophthalmology clinic. All children performed eye tracking to measure visual acuity, and 26 children completed TAC assessment by a masked examiner. Additionally, 2 pediatric neuro-ophthalmologists graded visual behavior using the 6-level Visual Behavior Scale (VBS). Eye tracking and TAC were performed at baseline and at 1 month. Test-retest reliability of eye tracking and TAC were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Eye tracking and TAC visual acuities were correlated with one another and VBS scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient.
resultsTest-retest reliability was excellent for eye tracking measurement of visual acuity (ICC = 0.81, P < .0001). For pediatric CVI, TAC test-retest reliability was fair (ICC = 0.42, P = .04). There was a moderate correlation between eye tracking and TAC (r = 0.43, P = .03) and between TAC and VBS score (r = 0.50, P = .009), and a strong correlation between eye tracking grating acuity and VBS score (r = 0.72, P < .0001).
conclusionsIn our cohort of children with CVI, grating acuity measured by eye tracking demonstrated higher test-retest reliability and stronger correlation with pediatric neuro-ophthalmologic assessment of visual behavior than Teller acuity. Objective determination of gaze direction by an eye tracking camera may be more accurate than human assessment in this population. Future research is needed to determine the optimal methods of longitudinal assessment of visual function and functional vision in children with CVI.
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.