ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Inter-Rater Reliability of EyeSpy Mobile for Pediatric Visual Acuity Assessments by Parent Volunteers.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the inter-rater test reliability of the EyeSpy Mobile visual acuity smartphone algorithm when administered to children by eye professionals and parent volunteers. Patients and Methods: Visual acuity test-retest results were analyzed for 106 children assigned to one of three different screenings: (1) An eye technician and pediatric ophthalmologist using their typical visual acuity testing method on a M&S computer; (2) An eye technician and pediatric ophthalmologist using EyeSpy Mobile; (3) An eye technician and parent volunteer using EyeSpy Mobile. Results: All three phases demonstrated a strong agreement between the two testers, with mean test-retest equivalency results within 0.05 logMAR (2.5 letters, 90% CI). Whether testing using their typical technique on an M&S computer or using EyeSpy Mobile, eye professionals obtained statistically closer mean test-retest results than parent volunteers by 1 letter, with equivalency results within 0.03 logMAR (1.5 letters, 90% CI). Conversely, the number of retests within 2 vision lines was statistically greater when EyeSpy mobile was used by parents as compared to eye professional's customary technique on the M&S computer. Conclusion: EyeSpy Mobile provides clinically useful visual acuity test-retest results even when used by first-time parent volunteers. Adaptive visual acuity algorithms have the potential to improve reliability, lessen training requirements, and expand the number of vision screening volunteers in community settings.
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.