Cargando…
Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8887635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35156935 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/26275 |
_version_ | 1784660948532854784 |
---|---|
author | Suo, Lingge Ke, Xianghan Zhang, Di Qin, Xuejiao Chen, Xuhao Hong, Ying Dai, Wanwei Wu, Defu Zhang, Chun Zhang, Dongsong |
author_facet | Suo, Lingge Ke, Xianghan Zhang, Di Qin, Xuejiao Chen, Xuhao Hong, Ying Dai, Wanwei Wu, Defu Zhang, Chun Zhang, Dongsong |
author_sort | Suo, Lingge |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In recent years, there has been increasing research on mobile app–based VA assessment designed to allow people to test their VA at any time and any location. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of using mobile VA measurement apps. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles on mobile apps for VA assessment published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2020. Two researchers independently inspected and selected relevant studies. Eventually, we included 22 studies that assessed tablet or smartphone apps for VA measurement. We then analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the 6 papers we found through a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Most of the 22 selected studies can be considered of high quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. In a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving 24,284 participants, we categorized the studies based on the age groups of the study participants (ie, aged 3-5 years, aged 6-22 years, and aged 55 years and older), examiner (ie, professional and nonprofessional examiners), and the type of mobile devices (ie, smartphone, iPad). In the group aged 3 to 5 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93; P=.39), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; P=.37). In the group aged 6 to 22 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87; P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91; P=.27). In the group aged 55 years and older, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55-0.98), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). We found that the nonprofessional examiner group (AUC 0.93) had higher accuracy than the professional examiner group (AUC 0.87). In the iPad-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86, and the pooled specificity was 0.79. In the smartphone-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the research on existing mobile apps for VA tests to investigate their diagnostic value and limitations. Evidence gained from this study suggests that mobile app–based VA tests can be useful for on-demand VI detection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8887635 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88876352022-03-10 Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Suo, Lingge Ke, Xianghan Zhang, Di Qin, Xuejiao Chen, Xuhao Hong, Ying Dai, Wanwei Wu, Defu Zhang, Chun Zhang, Dongsong JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Review BACKGROUND: Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In recent years, there has been increasing research on mobile app–based VA assessment designed to allow people to test their VA at any time and any location. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of using mobile VA measurement apps. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles on mobile apps for VA assessment published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2020. Two researchers independently inspected and selected relevant studies. Eventually, we included 22 studies that assessed tablet or smartphone apps for VA measurement. We then analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the 6 papers we found through a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Most of the 22 selected studies can be considered of high quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. In a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving 24,284 participants, we categorized the studies based on the age groups of the study participants (ie, aged 3-5 years, aged 6-22 years, and aged 55 years and older), examiner (ie, professional and nonprofessional examiners), and the type of mobile devices (ie, smartphone, iPad). In the group aged 3 to 5 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93; P=.39), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; P=.37). In the group aged 6 to 22 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87; P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91; P=.27). In the group aged 55 years and older, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55-0.98), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). We found that the nonprofessional examiner group (AUC 0.93) had higher accuracy than the professional examiner group (AUC 0.87). In the iPad-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86, and the pooled specificity was 0.79. In the smartphone-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the research on existing mobile apps for VA tests to investigate their diagnostic value and limitations. Evidence gained from this study suggests that mobile app–based VA tests can be useful for on-demand VI detection. JMIR Publications 2022-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8887635/ /pubmed/35156935 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/26275 Text en ©Lingge Suo, Xianghan Ke, Di Zhang, Xuejiao Qin, Xuhao Chen, Ying Hong, Wanwei Dai, Defu Wu, Chun Zhang, Dongsong Zhang. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 14.02.2022. 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 work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Review Suo, Lingge Ke, Xianghan Zhang, Di Qin, Xuejiao Chen, Xuhao Hong, Ying Dai, Wanwei Wu, Defu Zhang, Chun Zhang, Dongsong Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title | Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full | Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_short | Use of Mobile Apps for Visual Acuity Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_sort | use of mobile apps for visual acuity assessment: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8887635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35156935 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/26275 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT suolingge useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kexianghan useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangdi useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT qinxuejiao useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chenxuhao useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hongying useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT daiwanwei useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wudefu useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangchun useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangdongsong useofmobileappsforvisualacuityassessmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |