Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials

View ORCID ProfileArun James Thirunavukarasu, Refaat Hassan, Aaron Limonard, View ORCID ProfileShalom Vitreous Savant
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.03.23285417
Arun James Thirunavukarasu
1University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
2Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Arun James Thirunavukarasu
  • For correspondence: ajt205{at}cantab.ac.uk
Refaat Hassan
1University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
3Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron Limonard
1University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
4St John’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shalom Vitreous Savant
1University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
4St John’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Shalom Vitreous Savant
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Remote self-administered visual acuity (VA) tests have the potential to allow patients and non-specialists to assess vision without eye health professional input. Validation in pragmatic trials is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of tests in relevant settings to justify deployment.

Methods A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with a preregistered protocol (CRD42022385045). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched. Screening was conducted according to the following criteria: (1) English languge; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted remotely; (4) no clinical administration of remote test; (5) accuracy or reliability of remote test analysed. There were no restrictions on trial participants. Quality assessment was conducted with QUADAS-2.

Results Of 1227 identified reports, 10 studies were ultimately included. One study was at high risk of bias and two studies exhibited concerning features of bias; all studies were applicable. Three trials—of DigiVis, iSight Professional, and Peek Acuity—from two studies suggested that accuracy of the remote tests was comparable to clinical assessment. All other trials exhibited inferior accuracy, including conflicting results from a pooled study of iSight Professional and Peek Acuity. Two studies evaluated test-retest agreement—one trial provided evidence that DigiVis is as reliable as clinical assessment. The three most accurate tests required access to digital devices. Reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete, particularly with regards to describing methods and conducting statistical analysis.

Conclusions Remote self-administered VA tests appear promising, but further pragmatic trials are indicated to justify deployment at scale to facilitate patient or non-specialist led assessment which could augment teleophthalmology, non-specialist eye assessment, pre-consultation triage, and autonomous long-term monitoring of vision.

Competing Interest Statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AJT worked from July 2020-March 2021 as an unpaid research intern on clinical validation projects for a remote visual acuity test, DigiVis.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022385045

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval not required for this systematic review.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data will be published upon acceptance.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 03, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Refaat Hassan, Aaron Limonard, Shalom Vitreous Savant
medRxiv 2023.02.03.23285417; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.03.23285417
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Refaat Hassan, Aaron Limonard, Shalom Vitreous Savant
medRxiv 2023.02.03.23285417; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.03.23285417

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Ophthalmology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (434)
  • Allergy and Immunology (760)
  • Anesthesia (222)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3316)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (366)
  • Dermatology (282)
  • Emergency Medicine (480)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1175)
  • Epidemiology (13403)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (900)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5181)
  • Geriatric Medicine (483)
  • Health Economics (786)
  • Health Informatics (3286)
  • Health Policy (1146)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1199)
  • Hematology (432)
  • HIV/AIDS (1024)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14657)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (917)
  • Medical Education (478)
  • Medical Ethics (128)
  • Nephrology (526)
  • Neurology (4957)
  • Nursing (263)
  • Nutrition (735)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (889)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (797)
  • Oncology (2531)
  • Ophthalmology (730)
  • Orthopedics (284)
  • Otolaryngology (348)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (547)
  • Pediatrics (1308)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (552)
  • Primary Care Research (559)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4224)
  • Public and Global Health (7526)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1717)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1022)
  • Respiratory Medicine (982)
  • Rheumatology (480)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (500)
  • Sports Medicine (425)
  • Surgery (551)
  • Toxicology (73)
  • Transplantation (237)
  • Urology (206)