Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41736751›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Assessing the resilience of portable vision tests to an uncontrolled home environment.

Peter F Reddingius, Mehal Rathore, David P Crabb, Pete R Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter F ReddingiusDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Mehal RathoreDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
David P CrabbDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Pete R JonesDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In ophthalmology (and medicine more widely) there is increasing interest in telemedicine: having patients perform tests at home for greater efficiency and to meet growing demand. However, despite this increased interest in vision home monitoring, many vision tests are evaluated in standardised clinical settings, not home environments. Here, we investigated the resilience of two portable contrast sensitivity tests to the sorts of potentially confounding factors that may be encountered in a home setting. Methods: Normally sighted adults ( Results: No effect of time of day, participant motivation, or seating type was observed (all Conclusion: Taken together, the results indicate that, contrary to our expectations, both digital and pen-and-paper contrast sensitivity tests appear relatively resilient to many of the sorts of extraneous factors encountered in a home setting. This speaks to the potential viability of vision home monitoring, though study limitations and necessary future work are discussed.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityVision TestsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicineYoung AdultContrast sensitivityHome-monitoringOphthalmologyOptometryTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41736751
PMCPMC12927602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.