ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison between Different Visual Acuity Tests and Validation of a Digital Device.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Traumatic Orbital Compartment Syndrome in Children-Systematic Review and Descriptive Summary.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare different visual acuity (VA) tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for VA testing called DIVE (Devices for an Integral Visual Examination).
methodsVA was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA Symbols) and with two implemented tests in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE Symbols). We measured agreement between the different VA tests using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method. In addition, we measured the repeatability of all tests.
resultsRight eyes from 51 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.95 to 0.97). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within reasonable clinical limits. However, slightly better VA values were obtained with DIVE HOTV and ETDRS, followed by LEA and DIVE Symbols. ETDRS had the best repeatability.
conclusionThe four evaluated VA tests provide comparable outcomes. In an adult sample, letter optotypes obtained better VA values than symbol optotypes. DIVE VA tests are reliable and well-correlated with printed VA tests.
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.