Trial reportEye (London, England)2024
Accuracy of a commonly used mobile ophthalmology application's vision assessment tools in measuring five vision assessment parameters.
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Near Visual Acuity Measurements by Community Screeners Using Digital (Peek) Testing Versus Conventional Charts in India.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe use of mobile ophthalmology applications (MOA) is increasing, but many of these tools have not been validated. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of a popular MOA, Eye Handbook, in measuring five commonly-tested vision assessment parameters (distance visual acuity (DVA), near visual acuity (NVA), colour vision testing (CVT), contrast sensitivity (CS), and pupillary distance (PD)) was compared with traditional vision assessment methods (TVAM) [i.e. Snellen chart, Rosenbaum near card, Ishihara, Pelli Robson test, etc.] performed in the eye clinic setting. SUBJECTS/
methodsProspective crossover clinical trial of 129 patients meeting inclusion criteria.
resultsParticipants averaged significantly better DVA (p = 0.0008), NVA (p < 0.0001), and CVT (p = 0.0105) in the MOA than the TVAM, but all three MOA assessments were predictive of the TVAM values. CS was significantly better with the MOA (p < 0.0001). Linear regression and Spearman correlation tests were applied to assess the effect of CS on NVA, which showed no clear relationship between the difference in NVA and the difference in CS. PD using the two methods was in agreement with no significant difference (p = 0.2889).
conclusionThe studied MOA offers an effective means of measuring four common vision parameters: DVA, NVA, CVT, and PD. The MOA can potentially be used by eye care providers, health care providers, and patients, both as a screening tool with correction factor and to monitor ocular pathologies. Atypical MOA measurements should prompt testing in the clinic with formal TVAMs.
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.