ArticleClinical optometry2026
Clinical Validation of a Comprehensive Vision Screener for Assessing Visual Fitness for Drivers in Mumbai, India.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the agreement of an all-in-one portable vision screener (VS) with a standard battery of optometrist-administered tests. The purpose is to understand the feasibility of rapid screening for visual functions before providing occupational visual fitness. Patients and Methods: A Prospective cross-sectional study was performed among licensed public transport drivers at community eye camps in Mumbai. Distance and near vision, contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, colour vision (CV), and peripheral visual field were assessed using standard tests, including the LogMAR, Titmus Fly, Ishihara, and confrontation test, respectively. The same assessments were repeated using an all-in-one portable screener (VS). The total testing time was recorded for each test. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Bland-Altman plots were used for statistical analyses. Results: A total of 384 drivers participated, with a mean age of 47.1 ± 9.14 years. The mean presenting distance visual acuity was 0.22 ± 0.16 and 0.20 ± 0.18 LogMAR (p>0.05), the mean values for CS were 2.98 ± 2% and 5.7 ± 10.17% (p<0.05), the values for stereopsis were 863.08 ± 1402.92 and 656.54 ± 933.29 sec of arc (p<0.05) with standard charts and VS, respectively. The integrated colour vision test demonstrated low sensitivity (22.2%) but high specificity (89.2%) for detecting colour vision deficiency. Screening time decreased from 20 ± 5 minutes to 7 ± 3 minutes. ROC analysis showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for distance visual acuity (AUC = 0.861) and modest discriminative ability for stereopsis (AUC = 0.653). Bland-Altman analysis indicated good agreement between the standard test and screener for vision, CS, and stereopsis, with no significant systematic bias. Conclusion: The portable vision screener demonstrated high accuracy and strong agreement with standard clinical tests for visual functional tests. It enables rapid, comprehensive assessment of visual functions, making it a practical tool for large-scale vision screening in OHCs or mobile eye screening camps.
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.