ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
Beyond the snellen chart: exploring the clinical potential of sweep visual evoked potentials for visual acuity measurement.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the agreement between Snellen visual acuity (VA) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) VA in individuals with normal vision and assess sVEP variability and reproducibility across multiple test sessions.
methodsThirty-nine healthy participants (78 eyes) underwent Snellen and sVEP VA testing. Ten participants (20 eyes) also underwent sVEP testing twice daily (morning and afternoon) on three separate days (120 total recordings). and Snellen VA measurements showed strong agreement, with a mean absolute difference of 0.03 LogMAR (less than one Snellen line). Forty of 78 eyes had differences within one Snellen line, while the largest discrepancy reached four lines. Statistical analysis (P = 0.201) indicated no significant difference between the two methods. sVEP reproducibility was also high, with no significant variation between morning and afternoon recordings (P = 0.67), confirming its stability as a clinical tool.
conclusionsVEP provides objective and reproducible VA measurements comparable to Snellen VA, suggesting its potential as an alternative clinical assessment tool, particularly for patients with communication challenges, cognitive impairments, or suspected malingering vision loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790402What 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.