Observational studyEye (London, England)2024
Web-based vs. conventional: a comprehensive analysis of visual acuity assessment using the PocDoc tool in a tertiary eye care centre.
Observational study 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 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.
- Functional and Emotional Impact of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in Keratoconus.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparison of Online Visual Acuity Testing with Dynamic Dyop and Static LogMAR Optotypes in Healthy Non-Presbyopic and Presbyopic Individuals.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
backgroundVisual acuity (VA) represents a fundamental measure of visual function. The significant prevalence of underdiagnosed ocular disorders underscores the importance of effective VA assessment. This study evaluates the efficacy of a web-based VA assessment tool ("PocDoc") versus conventional VA testing.
methodsProspective observational study including 353 participants recruited from various eye clinics in a tertiary referral centre. Age, diagnosis, and VA related information (i.e. VA measurements from PocDoc and conventional VA test [Snellen chart], test type, etc) were collected. Spearman's rank correlation, Intraclass Correlation, and Bland-Altman plot compared outcomes of both tests. One-way ANOVA and paired-T test were used to compare means.
resultsMost patients were males (59.2%) with a mean age of 52.2 ± 20.6 years. PocDoc had moderate positive correlation to conventional testing (rho = 0.50, p < 0.001). PocDoc led to higher logMAR scores compared to conventional testing (mean logMAR 0.19 and 0.13 respectively, p < 0.01). Moreover, PocDoc demonstrated a sensitivity of 82.8% and specificity of 79% for detecting visual impairment. The discrepancy between PocDoc and conventional VA testing increased with higher logMAR values, indicating greater inconsistency between the tests for patients with poorer VA. Age, test type, and disease type contributed to this variability.
conclusionsThe concordance between PocDoc and conventional testing for VA measurement across various ages and conditions makes it a suitable screening tool. Future technological inventions should consider age, test type, and disease type as critical factors related to the level of agreement and correlation between digital and conventional VA testing methods.
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.