ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Estimating Visual Acuity Without a Visual Acuity Chart.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening Questions to Identify Low Vision and Acuity-Defined Legal Blindness.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Navigating the Lens Labyrinth: A Practical Approach to Intraocular Lens Classification and Selection.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This study explored whether visual acuity (VA) can be inferred from self-reported ability to recognize everyday objects using a set of yes/no questions. Methods: Participants answered 100 yes/no questions designed to assess their ability to recognize familiar objects at typical viewing distances, such as distinguishing between a full moon and a half moon on a clear night. The questions demanded VA ranging from normal to severe vision impairment. Responses were analyzed using item response theory, and the results were compared with participants' VA values. Results: We recruited 385 participants from 4 sites in the United States. Participants had a mean age of 56.7 years with VA ranging from -0.3 to 2.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (mean = 0.58). A strong relationship was observed between participants' estimated vision ability and their VA (r = -0.72). The linear relationship can be used to predict each participant's VA based on their estimated vision ability. The average signed and unsigned prediction errors were 0 and 0.24 logMAR, respectively, with a coefficient of repeatability of 0.59 logMAR between the estimated VA and measured VA. The same linear function was used to determine the VA limit required for each question. For instance, the VA limit for the moon question was 1.0 logMAR. Conclusions: Yes/no questions about everyday visual activities have the potential to estimate an individual's VA. Future refinements may enhance reliability. Translational Relevance: The survey provides insights into the real-world visual capabilities of people with low vision, making it potentially useful for telehealth applications.
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.