SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mobile visual acuity (VA) apps have emerged as valuable tools in both clinical and home settings, particularly in the context of expanding teleophthalmology. Despite the growing number of apps available to measure visual acuity, studies evaluating their overall quality, functionality, and clinical relevance are limited. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality and features of mobile VA apps available on iOS and Android platforms using the clinically validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Methods: A comprehensive search of the Google Play Store and Apple App Store was conducted between January 2024 and March 2024 using standardized search terms. Eligible apps included free, English-language VA testing tools not requiring external devices. App characteristics and features were extracted. Each app was independently evaluated by 2 trained reviewers using MARS, which rates engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and subjective quality on a 5-point scale. Results: Of the 725 apps initially identified, 44 met the inclusion criteria, with 23 from the Google Play Store and 21 from the Apple App Store. The most common VA test optotypes used were Tumbling E (n=21; 48%), Snellen Chart (18/44; 41%), and Landolt C (n=14; 32%). Common supplemental features included color vision testing (n=20; 46%), astigmatism tests (n=13; 30%), Amsler grid (n=13; 30%), and contrast testing (n=12; 28%). The average MARS scores were comparable across platforms: 3.04 (SD 0.80) for Android and 3.02 (SD 0.84) for iOS. Functionality received the highest ratings (mean 3.65, SD 0.75 for Android; mean 3.71, SD 0.82 for iOS), while subjective quality received the lowest (mean 2.09, SD 1.01 for Android; mean 2.21, SD 1.01 for iOS). Few apps had undergone clinical validation. Only Apple App Store apps demonstrated significant correlations between MARS scores and app store star ratings. Conclusions: VA apps exhibited considerable heterogeneity in quality, functionality, and clinical use. Total mean MARS scores were similar between the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store, suggesting that neither platform consistently offers superior app quality. While many apps are technically sound, low subjective-quality scores and a lack of clinical validation limit their current use in professional practice. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous app development and validation standards to improve their relevance and reliability in teleophthalmology.
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.