ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Enhancing access and clinical triage in primary eye care through digital vision testing: validation of the SightConnect mobile application.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessment of vision is the vital first step of an eye exam for determining visual status. The availability of portable digital vision testing tools enables vision assessments in remote areas, at home and during teleconsultations. Purpose: To assess the accuracy and agreement for measuring vision using the SightConnect mobile application (SightConnect) compared to in-clinic standard vision testing using the charts and to evaluate the performance of the SightConnect visual acuity grading algorithm, which classifies the visual acuity into one of these categories of visual impairment: mild, moderate and severe. Methods: Individuals visiting LV Prasad Eye Institute as part of their ophthalmic consultation were consecutively recruited for this study. Part -1 of the study evaluated the near visual acuity with SightConnect whereas part-2 evaluated both the distance and near acuity. The standard visual acuity at both distance and near was assessed by trained optometrists and vision technicians. SightConnect further classifies the obtained visual acuity based on severity of the vision and uses them as reference to suggest urgency of referral for an eye exam, as routine, early and urgent need for clinical attention. Results: A total of 1,481 individuals were assessed for visual acuity using SightConnect. Of these 710 participants in part-1 and 771 participants in part-2. Both eyes of the study participants were included in the study. The mean difference in near visual acuity assessment between SightConnect and the clinical measurements was 0.08 logMAR (-4 letters). For distance acuity, the mean difference between SightConnect and clinical measurements was 0.09 logMAR. The intraclass correlation coefficients indicated moderate reliability, with ICCs of 0.74 for near and 0.67 for distance acuity measurements. The visual acuity grading module was 78 to 90% accurate for identifying routine, early and urgent referrals based on vision status. Conclusions: Visual acuity testing using the SightConnect mobile application reported moderate agreement with the standard clinical assessments, and the accuracy in grading visual acuity and suggesting referral urgency was acceptable. These findings support the use of SightConnect applications for enabling and enhancing access to primary eye care services and guiding users on when to seek clinical attention.
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.