ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Analysis of the application of computerized optokinetic nystagmus analyzer in vision examination.
Article in BMC 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the practicability, accuracy, and consistency of the computerized optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) analyzer for visual acuity (VA) measurement.
methodCross-sectional consistency evaluation study. A total of 219 subjects (13.48 ± 12.89 years, 115 males, 104 females) underwent bilateral VA testing using a computerized OKN analyzer and a traditional OKN drum. Additionally, 104 subjects (12.58 ± 12.05 years, 54 males, 50 females) were tested bilaterally with the computerized OKN analyzer and a standard logarithmic E chart (random order), including 80 myopic eyes (spherical equivalent [SE] ≤ -0.5 D) and 63 hyperopic eyes (SE ≥ + 0.5 D); VA was recorded in logMAR. Concordance rates between the OKN analyzer and OKN drum were calculated. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the consistency between the OKN analyzer and a standard logarithmic E chart. Subjects completing the lightbox test were stratified by age (3-4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7-18 years, 18-58 years), refractive error, and VA range to compare inter-method correlations.
resultsCompared with the OKN drum, the computerized OKN analyzer achieved a concordance rate of 74.00% (right eye) and 77.08% (left eye), indicating good agreement. For VA measurements, mean VA (logMAR) of the right eye was 0.24 ± 0.29 (OKN analyzer) vs. 0.24 ± 0.28 (lightbox); left eye was 0.25 ± 0.28 vs. 0.24 ± 0.29. ICC values were 0.92 (right eye) and 0.88 (left eye, both P < 0.001), confirming significant consistency. Bland-Altman analysis showed 95% limits of agreement of -0.228 to 0.233 (right eye) and - 0.266 to 0.293 (left eye). Inter-method consistency improved with age (highest in ≥ 18 years) and was stronger in myopic vs. hyperopic eyes. Notably, correlation weakened as VA improved, with the highest concordance in the 0.1-0.5 decimal VA.
conclusionThe computerized OKN analyzer exhibits favorable reliability and practicability for VA testing in patients aged ≥ 6 years across different refractive errors, with accuracy that appears sufficient for screening and general clinical estimation of VA. However, in very young children (3-4 years) and in eyes with normal VA, agreement with chart‑based VA is limited, and further validation is required.
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.