Cargando…

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

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 just...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thirunavukarasu, Arun James, Hassan, Refaat, Limonard, Aaron, Savant, Shalom Vitreous
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37347757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281847
_version_ 1785061845185331200
author Thirunavukarasu, Arun James
Hassan, Refaat
Limonard, Aaron
Savant, Shalom Vitreous
author_facet Thirunavukarasu, Arun James
Hassan, Refaat
Limonard, Aaron
Savant, Shalom Vitreous
author_sort Thirunavukarasu, Arun James
collection PubMed
description 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. Here, published pragmatic trials of these tests were synthesised to summarise the effectiveness of available options and appraise the quality of their supporting evidence. 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 language; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted out of eye clinic; (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 is 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 in carefully defined contexts to facilitate patient or non-specialist led assessment. Deployment could augment teleophthalmology, non-specialist eye assessment, pre-consultation triage, and autonomous long-term monitoring of vision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10286971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102869712023-06-23 Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials Thirunavukarasu, Arun James Hassan, Refaat Limonard, Aaron Savant, Shalom Vitreous PLoS One Research Article 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. Here, published pragmatic trials of these tests were synthesised to summarise the effectiveness of available options and appraise the quality of their supporting evidence. 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 language; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted out of eye clinic; (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 is 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 in carefully defined contexts to facilitate patient or non-specialist led assessment. Deployment could augment teleophthalmology, non-specialist eye assessment, pre-consultation triage, and autonomous long-term monitoring of vision. Public Library of Science 2023-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10286971/ /pubmed/37347757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281847 Text en © 2023 Thirunavukarasu et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Thirunavukarasu, Arun James
Hassan, Refaat
Limonard, Aaron
Savant, Shalom Vitreous
Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title_full Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title_fullStr Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title_short Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials
title_sort accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: systematic review of pragmatic trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37347757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281847
work_keys_str_mv AT thirunavukarasuarunjames accuracyandreliabilityofselfadministeredvisualacuitytestssystematicreviewofpragmatictrials
AT hassanrefaat accuracyandreliabilityofselfadministeredvisualacuitytestssystematicreviewofpragmatictrials
AT limonardaaron accuracyandreliabilityofselfadministeredvisualacuitytestssystematicreviewofpragmatictrials
AT savantshalomvitreous accuracyandreliabilityofselfadministeredvisualacuitytestssystematicreviewofpragmatictrials