ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Real-world evaluation of online visual acuity self-testing and remote consultation: three years of implementation experience in a paediatric ophthalmology service.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOur previous validation studies indicated that automated best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing using the DigiVis web application is comparable to standard testing. Here, we evaluate real-world experience of digital BCVA self-testing (DVA) and remote consultation (RC) in a paediatric ophthalmology service.
methodsElectronic records of children assigned follow up RC with home DVA testing for their routine clinical care between March 2021 and October 2024 were reviewed. Demographic and clinical features, test duration and usability scores were analysed. Serial BCVA and DVA results were compared using Bland Altman statistical methods. Clinical outcomes and service adaptations were assessed.
results205 RC appointments with DVA testing were scheduled for children (aged 4-14, median 6 years). DVA results were available for 192 (93.7%) RCs, with 166 (86.5%) tests undertaken without clinical supervision. The mean bias between serial BCVA and DVA was 0.005 logMAR (p < 0.001) with upper and lower limits of agreement of +0.182 (95%CI: 0.169 to 0.195) and -0.173 (-0.186 to -0.160) logMAR respectively. Expedited follow-up face-to-face consultations (f2fC) were arranged for 13 families unwilling or unable to self-test, 5 children with poor concentration and 9 with self-detected deterioration of BCVA. Informative DVA results were available for 187 (91.2%) encounters. 116 (81.7%) of 142 families voluntarily completing Likert scoring rated the application good/excellent.
conclusionIn this real-world evaluation, 91.2% of offered DVA tests were informative and contributed to clinical decision making. DVA correctly identified unexpected deterioration in 9 children supporting the utility of this innovative service model.
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.