Reader TTS

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES The use of mobile ophthalmology applications (MOA) is increasing, but many of these tools have not been validated. This study was performed to assess the

accuracy of a popular MOA, _Eye Handbook_, in measuring five commonly-tested vision assessment parameters (distance visual acuity (DVA), near visual acuity (NVA), colour vision testing

(CVT), contrast sensitivity (CS), and pupillary distance (PD)) was compared with traditional vision assessment methods (TVAM) [i.e. Snellen chart, Rosenbaum near card, Ishihara, Pelli Robson

test, etc.] performed in the eye clinic setting. SUBJECTS/METHODS Prospective crossover clinical trial of 129 patients meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS Participants averaged

significantly better DVA (_p_ = 0.0008), NVA (_p_ < 0.0001), and CVT (_p_ = 0.0105) in the MOA than the TVAM, but all three MOA assessments were predictive of the TVAM values. CS was

significantly better with the MOA (_p_ < 0.0001). Linear regression and Spearman correlation tests were applied to assess the effect of CS on NVA, which showed no clear relationship

between the difference in NVA and the difference in CS. PD using the two methods was in agreement with no significant difference (_p_ = 0.2889). CONCLUSION The studied MOA offers an

effective means of measuring four common vision parameters: DVA, NVA, CVT, and PD. The MOA can potentially be used by eye care providers, health care providers, and patients, both as a

screening tool with correction factor and to monitor ocular pathologies. Atypical MOA measurements should prompt testing in the clinic with formal TVAMs. Access through your institution Buy

or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 18 print issues and

online access $259.00 per year only $14.39 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes

which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY

OTHERS WEB-BASED VS. CONVENTIONAL: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF VISUAL ACUITY ASSESSMENT USING THE POCDOC TOOL IN A TERTIARY EYE CARE CENTRE Article 17 October 2024 CLINICAL VALIDATION OF A

NOVEL WEB-APPLICATION FOR REMOTE ASSESSMENT OF DISTANCE VISUAL ACUITY Article Open access 30 August 2021 NEAR VISION DATA AND NEAR CORRECTION REQUIREMENTS FROM COMMUNITY EYE HEALTH

PROGRAMMES IN NINE COUNTRIES Article Open access 22 January 2024 DATA AVAILABILITY The data collected and analysed in this study are not publicly available due to institutional policy and

concerns for protecting protected health information (PHI). However, de-identified datasets can be shared with reasonable requests made in writing to the corresponding author. These requests

will be reviewed and are subject to subsequent institutional administration approval for the release of the data sets. REFERENCES * Aruljyothi L, Janakiraman A, Malligarjun B, Babu BM.

Smartphone applications in ophthalmology: a quantitative analysis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69:548–53. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Leonard C. Reference apps for

ophthalmologists. 2021. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/reference-apps-for-ophthalmologists. * Znamenska M. Top 11 mobile optometry & ophthalmology mobile apps. 2023.

https://www.altris.ai/article/top-mobile-optometry-ophthalmology-apps-for-eye-care-specialists/. * Davidson J. Top 10 optometry smartphone apps. 2020.

https://modernod.com/articles/2020-apr/top-10-optometry-smartphone-apps?c4src=article%3Ainfinite-scroll. * Lord K, Shah VA, Krishna R. The Eye Handbook: a mobile app in ophthalmic medicine.

Mo Med. 2013;110:49–51. PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Yeung WK, Dawes P, Pye A, Neil M, Aslam T, Dickinson C, et al. eHealth tools for the self-testing of visual acuity: a

scoping review. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:82. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Tofigh S, Shortridge E, Elkeeb A, Godley BF. Effectiveness of a smartphone application for

testing near visual acuity. Eye (Lond). 2015;29:1464–8. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Shah AA, Pasadhika S, Kim J, Wang M. Pseudoisochromatic color vision testing on an iPhone.

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6399. Google Scholar  * Cho P, Woo GC. Repeatability of the Waterloo four-contrast logMAR visual acuity chart and near vision test card on a group of

normal young adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:427–35. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kaur K, Gurnani B. Contrast sensitivity. [Updated 2023 Jun 11]. In: StatPearls [Internet].

Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK580542/ * Cheng L, Peng S, Hao H, Ye D, Xu L, Zuo Y, et al. Effect of different

screen brightness and devices on online visual acuity test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024;262:641–9. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jibran

Sharieff, MD (PGY-1 ophthalmology resident at Dean McGee Eye Institute) assisted with instruction on testing methods and manuscript editing. AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * These authors

contributed equally: Austin Raney, Savannah Cottom. AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Ophthalmology, Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 608

Stanton L. Young Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK, 73104, USA Austin Raney, Savannah Cottom, Jonathan Huff, Tavis Phan, Austin LaGrow, Christian Leal & Kamran M. Riaz * College of Medicine,

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA Austin Raney, Savannah Cottom, Jonathan Huff & Tavis Phan * Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, 100 Woodruff Circle, Atlanta, GA,

30322, USA Christian Leal * Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA Justin D. Dvorak Authors * Austin Raney View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Savannah Cottom View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Jonathan Huff View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Tavis Phan View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * Austin LaGrow View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Christian Leal View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Justin D. Dvorak View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kamran M. Riaz View author publications You can also search

for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS AR and SC were responsible for supervising and conducting the research; extracting and analysing data; interpreting results; and writing

the first draft of the manuscript. JH, TP, AL, and CL were responsible for conducting the data gathering; extracting and analysing the data; and creating tables and figures. JDD was

responsible for the primary statistical analysis for the study. KMR was responsible for supervising all study participants; reviewing the collected data; and editing and finalizing the

submitted final draft of the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Kamran M. Riaz. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL

FIGURE 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 2 SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 3 SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 5 SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES LEDGENDS RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a

society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript

version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Raney, A., Cottom, S.,

Huff, J. _et al._ Accuracy of a commonly used mobile ophthalmology application’s vision assessment tools in measuring five vision assessment parameters. _Eye_ 38, 3362–3367 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03315-7 Download citation * Received: 10 October 2023 * Revised: 03 August 2024 * Accepted: 23 August 2024 * Published: 02 September 2024 * Issue Date:

December 2024 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03315-7 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a

shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative