ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Visual Acuity Examination Methodology in Keratoconus.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of vision impairment among patients with diabetes mellitus in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Description and Evaluation of a Visual Acuity Assessment Paradigm Based on Spatial Frequency-Modulated Form Discrimination.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Evaluating corneal topographic patterns in keratoconic eyes and their association with keratoconus changes over time.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Relationship between objective and subjective refraction measurements in patients with mild keratoconus.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Non-orthogonal spectacle correction for irregular astigmatism.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension and Post-Transplant Complications in Keratoconus: A Multivariable Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual acuity is one of the most important parameters for evaluating the vision of patients with keratoconus. This study reviewed 295 articles related to keratoconus published between 2017 and 2022 in which visual acuity was one of the parameters measured. The methodology of visual acuity testing in studies on keratoconus was thoroughly analyzed. The analysis showed that the most commonly indicated chart for testing visual acuity papers on keratoconus is the Snellen chart. It was shown that in 150 out of 295 articles, the authors do not describe the methodology for testing visual acuity. What is more, it was also shown that in 68 of the 295 articles which were analyzed, a procedure for converting visual acuity tested with a Snellen chart into a logMAR scale was used. In this review, we discuss the validity and reliability of such conversions. In particular, we show that insufficient description of visual acuity testing methodology and lack of information on the conversion of visual acuity results into the logMAR scale may contribute to the misinterpretation of visual acuity test results.
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.