ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2026
Comparison of best corrected visual acuity estimates between a custom-made digital chart and the ETDRS chart.
Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurements obtained using a digital visual acuity chart with those from the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and to assess differences in measurement variability and examination time. Methods: Altogether 42 subjects (≥ 55 years) were examined using both charts on two separate occasions. BCVA was recorded in logMAR. Examination time was recorded. Subjects were stratified into four visual acuity classes. A nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze systematic differences and variance components. Results: A statistically significant difference in BCVA between the charts was found, but the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference (Digital - ETDRS: -0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR) was below the 0.1 logMAR resolution threshold. No significant interaction was observed between chart type and acuity class. The digital chart significantly reduced examination time by an average of 50 sec (95% CI: ±21). Variance was highest between testing occasions compared with that between-subject and for interaction between chart type and subjects. Conclusions: The digital chart provides clinically equivalent BCVA estimates compared to the ETDRS chart, with shorter examination time. Its use in routine clinical settings is supported.
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.