Parents' performance using the AAPOS Vision Screening App to test visual acuity in Malaysian preschoolers

Azis, Nik Nazihah Nik; Chew, Fiona Lee Min; Rosland, Siti Famira; Ramlee, Azura; Che-Hamzah, Jemaima

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.01.019

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the two compared tests were different, so learning effects are not expected. One study, Nik Azis et al [26], reported a convenience sampling method for recruitment, by excluding Fig. 4 Mean differences between distance visual acuity assessments (digital tool minus reference standard) and 95% limits of agreement in logMAR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning patient selection, patients were mostly recruited consecutively. One study, Nik Azis et al [26], reported a convenience sampling method for recruitment, by excluding children who were deemed uncooperative. Overall, there were no concerns regarding applicability for any of the studies: all studies matched the review question.…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital Tools for the Self-Assessment of Visual Acuity: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Numerous digital tools to selfassess visual acuity have been introduced. The recent COVID-19 pandemic underlined the need for high-quality remote care. This review gives a current overview of digital tools for remotely assessing visual function and reports on their accuracy. Methods: We searched the databases of Embase and Pubmed, and systematically reviewed the literature, conforming to PRISMA guidelines. Two preliminary papers were added from medRxiv.org. The main outcome was the agreement of the digital tools with conventional clinical charts, as expressed by mean differences and 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA).Results: Seventeen publications included studies reported on 13 different digital tools. Most of the tools focus on distance visual acuity. The mean differences of the digital tools ranged from -0.08 to 0.10 logMAR, when compared to traditional clinical assessments. The 95% LoA differed considerably between studies: from ± 0.08 logMAR to ± 0.47 logMAR, though the variability was less pronounced for higher visual acuities. Conclusion:The low mean differences between digital visual acuity assessments and reference charts suggest clinical equivalence, though the wide 95% LoA identify a lower precision of digital self-assessments. This effect diminishes in individuals with better visual acuities, which is a common feature of visual acuity assessments. There is great potential for the digital tools to increase access to eye care and we expect the accuracy of the current tools to improve with every iteration in technology development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Tools for the Self-Assessment of Visual Acuity: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarizes the most relevant information of the articles finally included in the current article [ 2 , 6 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Population selection bias is a critical factor for extrapolating the results of these investigations to the general population, including aspects such as setting (26.3% hospital [ 1 , 20 , 22 , 28 , 29 ], university 21.1% [ 2 , 14 , 18 , 25 ]), and ethnicity (26.3%) [ 15 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 ] and age (15.8%) [ 17 , 20 , 29 ]. Likewise, there is a need in some studies to provide separate and adequate description of materials (10.5%) [ 16 , 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Digital Applications for Evaluation of Visual Parameters: A Narrative Review

Mena-Guevara

Piñero

Sáiz

2021

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current review aimed to collect and critically analyze the scientific peer-reviewed literature that is available about the use of digital applications for evaluation of visual parameters in electronic devices (tablets and smartphones), confirming if there are studies calibrating and validating each of these applications. Three bibliographic search engines (using the search equation described in the paper) and the Mendeley reference manager search engine were used to complete the analysis. Only articles written in English and that are evaluating the use of tests in healthy patients to measure or characterize any visual function aspects using tablets or smartphones were included. Articles using electronic visual tests to assess the results of surgical procedures or are conducted in pathological conditions were excluded. A total of 19 articles meeting these inclusion and exclusion criteria were finally analyzed. One critical point of all these studies is that there was no mention of the characterization (spatial and/or colorimetrical) of screens and the stimuli used in most of them. Only two studies described some level of calibration of the digital device before the beginning of the study. Most revised articles described non-controlled comparatives studies (73.7%), reporting some level of scientific evidence on the validation of tools, although more consistent studies are needed.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, one eye needs to be covered while the other is assessed, which might have an artificial effect on actual visual acuity. Currently, some visual acuity measurement methods and software have been developed, such as the Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Measurement (8,9), the Electronic Visual Acuity Tester (10), and the AAPOS Vision Screening App (11); however, these focus mainly on visual acuity screening alone. Other visual functions, e.g., stereo vision and binocular balance, cannot be assessed with a simple paper eye chart, and special equipment must be used (12,13); for example, the Bagolini striated lens ( 14) can be used to examine binocular balance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid, accurate, multifunctional and self-assisted vision assessment and screening with interactive desktop autostereoscopy

Li¹,

Zhong²,

Wang³

et al. 2021

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to develop an interactive vision screening tool based on desktop autostereoscopy and evaluate its feasibility for testing visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision and binocular balance clinically.Methods: An interactive desktop autostereoscopy vision test was developed making it remarkably convenient for individuals to undergo multiple visual function assessments in a single test. With this rapid screening process, an individual's visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision and binocular balance can be assessed within several minutes. A total of 155 healthy subjects were enrolled to compare the clinical repeatability, accuracy, inter-visit variability, likeability and efficiency between the autostereoscopy and traditional method. Results: In the repeatability test, the visual acuity measured with autostereoscopy was 0.045±0.018 and 0.035±0.018 (P=0.702) for the first and second tests, respectively. The mean logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) visual acuities measured with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (EDTRS) chart and autostereoscopy test were 0.04±0.02 and 0.05±0.02, respectively, which were not significantly different (P=0.849). The correlation between these two kinds of tests was statistically significant (Spearman correlation coefficient =0.829, P<0.001). The results for colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision are presented, and the effectiveness of the autostereoscopic method is supported with qualitative data comparing its results with those of the traditional methods. In the likeability test, the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test had scores of 2.21±0.53 and 3.04±0.07, while the traditional and autostereoscopy tests for colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision had scores of 2.02±0.59 and 3.36±0.93, respectively (P<0.001). Regarding visual fatigue, the mean scores were 0.69±0.04 and 0.42±0.04 (P<0.001) with the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test, respectively. Regarding work efficiency, the average testing times per person was 59.65±0.66 and 48.92±0.86 s (P<0.001) with the EDTRS chart and autostereoscopy test, respectively. Conclusions:The autostereoscopy test was conclusively shown to be valid, efficient and repeatable for the measurement of visual acuity, colour vision, stereo vision, and binocular vision, and the process was subjectively well-liked and comfortable.

show abstract

Parents' performance using the AAPOS Vision Screening App to test visual acuity in Malaysian preschoolers

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Digital Tools for the Self-Assessment of Visual Acuity: A Systematic Review

Digital Tools for the Self-Assessment of Visual Acuity: A Systematic Review

Validation of Digital Applications for Evaluation of Visual Parameters: A Narrative Review

Rapid, accurate, multifunctional and self-assisted vision assessment and screening with interactive desktop autostereoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About