ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Validation of a computerized version of the MNREAD chart for children.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed the develop and validate a computerized version of the MNREAD for the assessment of reading speed for children.
methodsA computerized version of the MNREAD was built in Psykinematix software using the same parameters as the physical chart. We measured the reading velocity of 104 children (n = 44 of the 3rd grade; n = 60 of the 5th grade). Bland-Altaman analysis was used to quantify agreement between two chart measurements.
resultsComparison between the 3rd and 5th-grade children for physical and computerized MNREAD versions showed statistical differences in Maximum Reading Speed (F = 2669.6; p < 0.001), Critical Print Size (F = 17.49; p < 0.001), and Reading Acuity (F = 14.19; p = 0.002) with huge effect size (η
conclusionOur reading speed values for children in the 5th grade were higher than previous studies, suggesting a better quality of the assessment in the computerized version. Tolerance Limits were calculated as normality references for clinical purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.