ReviewEye (London, England)2024
Assessment of visual function using mobile Apps.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of Visual Acuity and Stereopsis in Older Adults: A Comparison Between a Screening Application and Clinical Standards-A Feasibility Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Neuro-ophthalmology: recent advances and paradigm shifts.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Standardization of distance visual acuity measurement using optonet computerized vision charts: A multicentric study.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advances in smartphone and tablet screens, as well as their processing power and software, mobile apps have been developed reporting to assess visual function. This review assessed those mobile apps that have been evaluated in the scientific literature to measure visual acuity, reading metrics, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, colour vision and visual fields; these constitute just a small percentage of the total number of mobile apps reporting to measure these metrics available for tablets and smartphones. In general, research suggests that most of the mobile apps evaluated can accurately mimic most traditionally paper-based tests of visual function, benefitting from more even illumination from the backlit screen and aspects such as multiple tests and versions (to minimise memorisation) being available on the same equipment. Some also utilise the in-built device sensors to monitor aspects such as working distance and screen tilt. As the consequences of incorrectly recording visual function and using this to inform clinical management are serious, clinicians must check on the validity of a mobile app before adopting it as part of clinical practice.
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.