ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Validation and evaluation of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a new digital device: OPTOTAB®.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Measurement With Letters and Gratings.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Contrast Sensitivity Impairment in Diabetic Retinopathy: Clinical and Structural Correlates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Phoria, Oculomotor Skills and Visual Symptoms in Children Aged 5 to 8 Years.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Validation and evaluation of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a new digital device: OPTOTAB®.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Comparing Close-Field and Open-Field Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate a new digital device: Optotab®+ (SmarThings4Vision) for measuring visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS).
methodsA validation study was conducted involving 20 healthy subjects (aged: 18-29 years). Distance and near VA and CS were assessed using the Optotab®+ and compared with the ETDRS test and Sloan letters for distance VA, the ETDRS test and LEA numbers® near vision card for near VA and the Regan and CSV-1000 tests for CS.
resultsNo significant differences were noted between the right eye (RE) and left eye (L for distance (p > 0.99) and near VA (p = 0.32) or test-retest measurements (p > 0.05) using the Optotab®+. Distance VA differed significantly from the ETDRS (mean differences: -0.07 and -0.07 logMAR for the RE and LE, respectively, p = 0.01). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) indicated moderate reliability (RE: 0.64, LE: 0.48), while the ANOVA showed no significant differences (p = 0.75 for RE and p = 0.58 for LE). For CS, no significant differences were found between the RE and LE, except at 12 cpd (p = 0.04). ICC was highest at 18 cpd (0.90). A significant test-retest difference was observed at 6 cpd for the RE (0.10 log units, p = 0.01). Comparisons showed significant differences at 6 cpd between Optotab®+ and the CSV-1000, and at 3, 12 and 18 cpd between Optotab®+ and the Regan test. ICC indicated low to high reliability across spatial frequencies, while the ANOVA did not show significant differences or low variability. No significant inter-examiner differences were identified in VA and CS (p > 0.05), confirming strong reproducibility.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the Optotab®+ has moderate reliability for VA assessment and higher precision at higher spatial frequencies for CS, suggesting its clinical utility. Outcomes regarding reliability, repeatability and reproducibility support its validity as an effective tool for measuring visual parameters in 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.