ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2026
HOTV Vision Test Compared With Tumbling E for Pediatric Vision Screening.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05770661 (China Nine Provinces Children Eye Study), which is not on this 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.
China Nine Provinces Children Eye Study
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
Importance: Accurate assessment of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) is fundamental to pediatric vision screening. Although the HOTV letter-matching test is recommended for pediatric vision screening, the tumbling E test remains widely used globally despite its higher cognitive demands for young children. Evidence directly comparing UCVA outcomes between the 2 tests across pediatric age groups is limited. Objective: To compare UCVA outcomes from HOTV and tumbling E vision tests and evaluate their suitability for pediatric vision screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional observational study, each participant underwent UCVA testing with both HOTV and tumbling E logMAR charts in a randomized sequence, with a 30-minute rest period between tests to minimize fatigue. The study was conducted in Shanghai as part of a national multicenter cohort study in China. Participants included 995 children aged 3 to 15 years who completed both vision tests, cycloplegic refraction, and comprehensive ophthalmic examinations. These data were analyzed from January 2025 to June 2026. Exposure: UCVA assessments using HOTV and tumbling E logMAR tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean UCVA (logMAR). Secondary outcomes included referral rates for reduced UCVA, screening performance for amblyopia and refractive errors, testability, and time required for vision test. Results: Overall, mean (SD) UCVA was 0.15 (0.22) (20/25) with HOTV and 0.20 (0.20) (20/32) with tumbling E (95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02; P < .001). The difference between the 2 tests decreased with age, initially 1 logMAR line in children aged 3 to younger than 4 years, more than 3 letters in those younger than 8 years, and reducing to 1 or less letters by age 8 years or older. Among 183 preschool children, HOTV test showed a lower referral rate (n = 34 [18.6%]) than tumbling E (n = 57 [31.2%]) (mean difference, -12.6%; 95% CI, -19.2% to -5.9%; P < .001), along with a higher true positive rate (0.68 vs 0.44; P < .001) and better specificity (0.93 vs 0.79; P < .001), with similar measures in older children. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support the use of the HOTV test for children younger than 8 years. Its use could reduce unnecessary referrals, especially in the context of growing global emphasis on pediatric vision screening and early detection of myopia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05770661.
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.