ArticleBMJ open2026
Clinical application of dynamic visual acuity for detection of eye diseases: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany eye diseases are asymptomatic in their early stages; thus, timely detection is essential for improved outcomes. Dynamic visual acuity (DVA)-the ability to perceive moving targets-has been reported as a valuable screening tool for early disease detection. However, unlike static visual acuity, DVA is not routinely assessed in the eye clinic, perhaps due to a lack of standardised measurement protocols and limited understanding among clinicians of its physiological and diagnostic relevance. This scoping review aims to assess the evidence on DVA; provide insight into its physiological basis, measurement techniques and potential for early detection of disease; and identify research gaps to inspire future studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and will involve all relevant articles, including reviews and original studies published in online databases such as PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Global Health and ScienceDirect. Also, a reference list of relevant articles will be searched, and insight from expert consultations and information from grey literature will be included in the review. Studies conducted with human subjects and in English, irrespective of the year of publication or study design, will be reviewed. Two independent reviewers will screen identified articles, with a third reviewer confirming findings. The data extraction tool will be tested in a pilot review, and the findings will be presented using tables and visual summaries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
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.