ArticleJournal of optometry
Standardization of distance visual acuity measurement using optonet computerized vision charts: A multicentric study.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the repeatability and validity of computerized distance visual acuity (VA) charts from Optonet Vision Unit (OVU) using a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme which recreates real-life scenario conditions.
methodsThis is a multicentric study with 481 participants aged from 7 to 88 years. Distance VA was assessed by OVU with five different computerized VA charts, according to Bailey and Lovie's principles (Sloan, British, Numbers, Landolt C and Broken Rings). Two consecutive measurements (TCM) and two measurements (Test re-test (TRT)) were evaluated (95% limits of agreement (LOA), ICC 95%).
resultsIn all VA charts, the mean difference between measurements was near 0.00 logMAR and there was an excellent correlation between TCM (ICC ≥0.968, 95% LOA of ±0.071 logMAR) and TRT (ICC ≥0.957, 95% LOA of ±0.09 logMAR). Pairwise comparison between VA charts showed a statistical difference between tests, with a minimum mean difference of 0.003 logMAR (95% CI, -0.010 to 0.004) between Landolt C and Broken rings; and a maximum mean difference of 0.071 logMAR between Sloan letters and Numbers (95% CI, -0.075 to -0.067).
conclusionsThe reliability and reproducibility of OVU software for distance VA measurement is promising for eye care practitioner consultation highlighting the possibility of expanding the use of OVU for both clinic and research. The use of online CPD programs is useful to improve statistical and research understanding is an innovative, hands-on approach that helps in bridging the gap between clinical practice and research.
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.