Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38502142›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024

The Freiburg Acuity Test in Preschool Children: Testability, Test-Retest Variability, and Comparison With LEA Symbols.

Navid Farassat, Vanessa Jehle, Sven P Heinrich, Wolf A Lagrèze, Michael Bach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The Waterloo Differential Acuity Test (WatDAT)-Testability and normative data.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Navid FarassatEye Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Vanessa JehleEye Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sven P HeinrichEye Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Wolf A LagrèzeEye Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael BachEye Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
University Medical Center Freiburg · DEORCID · USUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the testability, performance, and test-retest variability (TRV) of visual acuity (VA) assessment using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT) compared to the LEA Symbols Test (LEA) in preschool children. Methods: In 134 preschool children aged 3.0 to 6.8 years, monocular VA of each eye was measured twice with a four-orientation Landolt C version of the FrACT and once with the LEA. FrACT runs were preceded by a binocular run for explanatory purposes. Test order alternated between subjects. Optotypes were presented on a computer monitor (FrACT) or on cards (LEA) at a distance of 3 m. Results: Overall, 68% completed the FrACT (91/134 children) and 88% completed the LEA (118/134 children). Testability depended on age: FrACT, 19% (<4 years) and 87% (≥4 years); LEA, 70% (<4 years) and 95% (≥4 years). Mean ± SD VA difference between tests was 0.11 ± 0.19 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], with LEA reporting better acuity. The difference depended on age (0.27 ± 0.23 logMAR [<4 years], 0.09 ± 0.18 logMAR [≥4 years], P < 0.001) and on test sequence (higher age dependence of FrACT VAs for LEA first, P < 0.001). The 95% limits of agreement for the FrACT TRV were ±0.298 logMAR. Conclusions: The examiner-independent FrACT, using international reference Landolt C optotypes, can be used to assess VA in preschool children aged ≥4 years, with reliability comparable to other pediatric VA tests. Translational Relevance: Use of the automated FrACT for VA assessment in preschool children may benefit objectivity and validity as it is a computerized test and employs the international reference Landolt C optotype.

Indexed as

Vision TestsChildChild, PreschoolHumansReproducibility of ResultsVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID38502142
PMCPMC10959192
OpenAlexW4392949350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.